|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> We can all agree,... maybe... /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1477586634 Message started by Serowbot on 10/27/16 at 09:43:54 |
|
Title: We can all agree,... maybe... Post by Serowbot on 10/27/16 at 09:43:54 Sign a petition to make the elections shorter... 2 years of campaigning is nuts... Elected officials spend more than half their time running... whilst they should be working for us... Sheryl Crow has no specific timeline,... just let's work together to make this process shorter... Click here to sign the petition... https://www.change.org/p/democratic-national-committee-shorten-the-us-presidential-election-cycle Who ain't tired of this yet?... :-? |
|
Title: Re: We can all agree,... maybe... Post by raydawg on 10/27/16 at 10:16:56 Sure, however...... The media is the aristocrats that make billions off of the current set-up. This is the elitist the deplorable are in opposition with. |
|
Title: Re: We can all agree,... maybe... Post by MnSpring on 10/27/16 at 16:20:08 485E49544C59544F3B0 wrote:
AGREE !!! We, ALL, are PAYING, a person to ‘Represent us’, NOT, to ‘Campaign’, for, Them !!!!!! Take a person, elected to a 4 year term. In two years, their is a election, ‘for something better’. That person spends, ‘how much time’, ‘Campaigning’, NOT, ‘Representing’. And if they loose, they STILL got a, ‘Job’. If they win, they got a, ‘Better Job’. ALL PAID for by YOU & ME !!!!!!! (Gee Bot, Kinna sounds like a very sensible thing to do. Careful, sounds 'almost', like, (the Bad Word), 'Conservative') |
|
Title: Re: We can all agree,... maybe... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/27/16 at 23:52:59 Thought exercise, Don't just Jump in, warm up first. Very interesting point, Bot, and I don't know if I want that or just Really Short term limits.. but I definitely want term limits, at Least until the unbridled, runaway corruption is brought under control.. Okay, ready? Jury duty, sometimes they are sequestered. Kept away from friends, family, ,, days, weeks, who knows? Well, what IF a State decided to start a program, and send two person teams to D.C. to just shadow along with the Elected Public SERVANTS and watch them as they go about The Business of REPRESENTATION of their Constituents? Ohhh, Too Costly!! Well, look at what they are costing us, running around Unsupervised! They could video and send right to a website that anyone could access. Sure, I know that they have meetings and go to the bathroom,,I'm not stupid, |
|
Title: Re: We can all agree,... maybe... Post by verslagen1 on 10/28/16 at 07:44:51 Why do we need a team to report on every rep? They should log their own actions... it's called a calendar. 2 week delay or so to protect them from predators, then make it public. Once in a while an auditor checks it for accuracy. |
|
Title: Re: We can all agree,... maybe... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/29/16 at 20:04:08 Well, Some kinda oversight is needed. Their voting records may not LOOK all that horrid, ohh, we Know, back scratching, etc... I don't see them serving America. |
|
Title: Re: We can all agree,... maybe... Post by raydawg on 10/30/16 at 07:24:12 I see nothing wrong with having a fox guard the chicken coup, presently ::) |
|
Title: Re: We can all agree,... maybe... Post by MnSpring on 10/30/16 at 10:17:49 5D4E564B4E58482F0 wrote:
Really, REALLY ! |
|
Title: Re: We can all agree,... maybe... Post by raydawg on 10/30/16 at 10:31:00 5675486B6972757C1B0 wrote:
Really, REALLY ! [/quote] Wake up, have your coffee, read it again..... ;D |
|
Title: Re: We can all agree,... maybe... Post by MnSpring on 10/30/16 at 10:43:32 22312934312737500 wrote:
Really, REALLY ! [/quote] Wake up, have your coffee, read it again..... ;D [/quote] So does your adding the word, 'Presently", mean 'until' the election' ? Or the next 4 years ? |
|
Title: Re: We can all agree,... maybe... Post by raydawg on 10/30/16 at 11:28:46 0724193A3823242D4A0 wrote:
Really, REALLY ! [/quote] Wake up, have your coffee, read it again..... ;D [/quote] So does your adding the word, 'Presently", mean 'until' the election' ? Or the next 4 years ? [/quote] Ok, put down your coffee mug and pick up a beer...... The whole enchilada spew was tongue in cheek.....sarcasm. it is like Loretta getting schooled by Willie about what to do with Hillary on the emails, sure, he told her to go with whatever the investigation revealed ;D Ya ready to ask Hov for a shot of Black Label now ;D |
|
Title: Re: We can all agree,... maybe... Post by MnSpring on 10/30/16 at 11:51:02 6D7E667B7E68781F0 wrote:
OK, got it. 3 of my tall mugs of coffee enough this morning. As to a beer? Na, Gotta start splitting wood for next year. Got last years stuff in the shed, all snug and dry. Just had to start a little one in the stove in the garage, even though it is a balmy 45f here. Just the smell, and take off a little dampness. And while getting it going, thought would check in, and watch the, bot show. |
|
Title: Re: We can all agree,... maybe... Post by raydawg on 10/30/16 at 12:32:32 05261B383A21262F480 wrote:
OK, got it. 3 of my tall mugs of coffee enough this morning. As to a beer? Na, Gotta start splitting wood for next year. Got last years stuff in the shed, all snug and dry. Just had to start a little one in the stove in the garage, even though it is a balmy 45f here. Just the smell, and take off a little dampness. And while getting it going, thought would check in, and watch the, bot show. [/quote] A wise man once told me, "it is easier to be ready when its easier to do" I have all 4 cords cut and stacked, already.... Did it in a tee shirt and a lil' sweat, beats frozen balls and a jacket ;D And i can sit, eat popcorn, and watch the Bots without missing a beat now :D |
|
Title: Re: We can all agree,... maybe... Post by piedmontbuckeye on 10/30/16 at 13:47:49 425D5B5C41467747774F5D511A280 wrote:
The Founding Fathers DID already do just what you suggested! They had the Senators sent by each of the states to make sure that the Fed would not step on the states. But somebody changed all that and made them elected! |
|
Title: Re: We can all agree,... maybe... Post by raydawg on 10/30/16 at 14:03:50 Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is part of a series on the Constitution of the United States of America Greater coat of arms of the United States.svg Preamble and Articles of the Constitution Preamble I II III IV V VI VII Amendments to the Constitution Bill of Rights I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV XXVI XXVII Unratified Amendments Congressional Apportionment Titles of Nobility Corwin Child Labor Equal Rights D.C. Voting Rights History Drafting & ratification timeline Convention Signing Federalism Republicanism Full text of the Constitution and Amendments Preamble & Articles I–VII Amendments I–X Amendments XI–XXVII Unratified Amendments United States portal U.S. Government portal Law portal Wikipedia book v t e The Seventeenth Amendment in the National Archives The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established the popular election of United States Senators by the people of the states. The amendment supersedes Article I, §3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures. It also alters the procedure for filling vacancies in the Senate, allowing for state legislatures to permit their governors to make temporary appointments until a special election can be held. The amendment was proposed by the 62nd Congress in 1912 and adopted in 1913 upon being ratified by three-fourths (36) of the state legislatures. It was first implemented in special elections in Maryland (November 1913) and Alabama (May 1914), then nationwide in the November 1914 election. Contents [hide] 1 Text 2 Background 2.1 Original composition 2.2 Issues 2.3 Calls for reform 3 Proposal and ratification 3.1 Proposed by the Congress 3.2 Ratification by the states 3.3 Effect 3.4 First direct elections to the Senate 3.5 Interpretation and advocacy for reform 4 References 5 Bibliography 6 External links Text[edit] The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.[1] Background[edit] Original composition[edit] James Wilson, the only member of the Constitutional Convention who supported electing the United States Senate by popular vote. Originally, under Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, each state legislature elected its state's senators for a six-year term.[2] Each state, regardless of size, is entitled to two senators as part of the Connecticut Compromise between the small and large states.[3] This contrasted with the House of Representatives, a body elected by popular vote, and was described as an uncontroversial decision; at the time, James Wilson was the sole advocate of popularly electing the Senate and his proposal was defeated 10–1.[4] There were many advantages to the original method of electing senators. Prior to the Constitution, a federal body was one where states effectively formed nothing more than permanent treaties, with citizens retaining their loyalty to their original state. However, under the Constitution, the states were subordinated to a central government; the election of senators by the states reassured Anti-federalists that there would be some protection against the swallowing up of states and their powers by the federal government,[5] providing a check on the power of the federal government.[6] Additionally, the longer terms and avoidance of popular election turned the Senate into a body that could "temper" the populism of the House. While the Representatives operated in a two-year direct election cycle, making them frequently accountable to their constituents, the senators could afford to "take a more detached view of issues coming before Congress".[7] State legislatures retained the theoretical right to "instruct" their senators to vote for or against proposals, thus giving the states both direct and indirect representation in the federal government.[8] The Senate was part of a formal bicameralism, with the members of the Senate and House responsible to completely distinct constituencies; this helped defeat the problem of the federal government being subject to "special interests".[9] Members of the Constitutional Convention considered the Senate to be equivalent to the British House of Lords as an 'upper house', containing the "better men" of society; it was hoped that they would provide more coolness and stability than the House of Representatives due to the senators' status.[10] Issues[edit] According to Judge Jay Bybee of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, those in favor of popular elections for senators believed that two primary problems were caused by the original provisions: legislative corruption and electoral deadlocks.[11] There was a sense that senatorial elections were "bought and sold", changing hands for favors and sums of money rather than because of the competence of the candidate. Between 1857 and 1900, the Senate investigated three elections over corruption. In 1900, for example, William A. Clark had his election voided after the Senate concluded that he had bought votes in the Montana legislature. But, analysts Bybee and Todd Zywicki believe this concern was largely unfounded; there was a "dearth of hard information" on the subject.[12] In more than a century of legislative elections of US senators, only 10 cases were contested for allegations of impropriety.[13] Electoral deadlocks were another issue. Because state legislatures were charged with deciding whom to appoint as senators, the system relied on them being able to agree. Some states could not, and thus delayed sending representatives to Congress; in a few cases, the system broke down to the point where states completely lacked representation in the Senate.[14] Deadlocks started to become an issue in the 1850s, with a dead-locked Indiana legislature allowing a Senate seat to sit vacant for two years.[15] Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections were deadlocked, in 20 different states;[13] in one extreme example, a Senate seat for Delaware went unfilled from 1899 until 1903.[16] The business of holding elections also caused great disruption in the state legislatures, with a full third of the Oregon House of Representatives choosing not to swear the oath of office in 1897 due to a dispute over an open Senate seat. The result was that the legislature was unable to pass legislation that year.[16] Zywicki again argues that this was not a serious issue. Deadlocks were a problem, but they were the exception rather than the norm; many legislatures did not deadlock over elections at all. Most of those that did in the 19th century were the newly admitted western states, which suffered from "inexperienced legislatures and weak party discipline...as western legislatures gained experience, deadlocks became less frequent." While Utah suffered from deadlocks in 1897 and 1899, they became "a good teaching experience," and Utah never again failed to elect senators.[17] Another concern was that when deadlocks occurred, state legislatures were unable to conduct their other normal business; James Christian Ure, writing in the South Texas Law Review, notes that this did not in fact occur. In a deadlock situation, state legislatures would deal with the matter by holding "one vote at the beginning of the day—then the legislators would continue with their normal affairs".[18] State legislative elections were perceived to have become dominated by the business of picking senators.[19] Senator John H. Mitchell noted that the Senate became the "vital issue" in all legislative campaigns, with the policy stances and qualifications of state legislative candidates ignored by voters who were more interested in the indirect Senate election.[20] To remedy this, some state legislatures created "advisory elections" that served as de facto general elections, allowing legislative campaigns to focus on local issues.[20] Calls for reform[edit] William Jennings Bryan, who campaigned for the popular election of U.S. Senators Calls for a constitutional amendment regarding Senate elections started in the early 19th century, with Henry R. Storrs in 1826 proposing an amendment to provide for popular election.[21] Similar amendments were introduced in 1829 and 1855, with the "most prominent" proponent being Andrew Johnson, who raised the issue in 1868 and considered the idea's merits "so palpable" that no additional explanation was necessary.[22] In the 1860s, there was a major Congressional dispute over the issue, with the House and Senate voting to veto the appointment of John P. Stockton to the Senate due to his approval by a plurality rather than a majority vote for the office. In reaction, the Congress passed a bill in July 1866 that required state legislatures to elect senators by an absolute majority.[22] By the 1890s, support for the introduction of direct election for the Senate had substantially increased, and reformers worked on two fronts. On the first front, the Populist Party incorporated the direct election of senators into its Omaha Platform, adopted in 1892.[23] In 1908, Oregon passed the first law that based the selection of U.S. senators on a popular vote. Oregon was soon followed by Nebraska.[24] Proponents for popular election noted that ten states already had non-binding primaries for Senate candidates,[25] in which the candidates would be voted on by the public, effectively serving as advisory referenda instructing state legislatures how to vote;[25] reformers campaigned for more states to introduce a similar method. William Randolph Hearst opened a nationwide popular readership for direct election of U.S. Senators in a 1906 series of articles using flamboyant language attacking “The Treason of the Senate” in his Cosmopolitan Magazine. David Graham Philips, one of the "yellow journalists" whom President Teddy Roosevelt called “muckrakers”, described Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island as the principal “traitor” among the “scurvy lot” in control of the Senate by theft, perjury, and bribes corrupting the state legislatures to gain election to the Senate. A few state legislatures began to petition the Congress for direct election of senators. By 1893, the House had the two-thirds vote for just such an amendment. However, when the joint resolution reached the Senate, it failed from neglect, as it did again in 1900, 1904 and 1908; each time the House approved the appropriate resolution, and each time it died in the Senate.[26] On the second national legislative front, reformers worked toward a constitutional amendment, which was strongly supported in the House of Representatives but initially opposed by the Senate. Bybee notes that the state legislatures, which would lose power if the reforms went through, were supportive of the campaign. By 1910, 31 state legislatures had passed resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment allowing direct election, and in the same year ten Republican senators who were opposed to reform were forced out of their seats, acting as a "wake-up call to the Senate".[25] |
|
Title: Re: We can all agree,... maybe... Post by WebsterMark on 10/31/16 at 04:58:26 No, I would not sign that. This is why the Citizens United case is important. For one thing, it keeps the decision about what gets into mass media soley out of the hands of the "free press" since they are neither free nor fair. A specific timeline would only put more power and control to the MSM. Sounds like a good idea and might have value but it's another causality of the media putting on the same jerseys as the Democrats. Note I said Democrats and not liberals. Bernie was thrown to the dogs in favor of the choosen Democratic Party candidate. |
|
Title: Re: We can all agree,... maybe... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/02/16 at 18:38:13 405955545D5F5E445245535B554955300 wrote:
The Founding Fathers DID already do just what you suggested! They had the Senators sent by each of the states to make sure that the Fed would not step on the states. But somebody changed all that and made them elected! [/quote] Yeeaahh, kinda gotta wonder Why,,, Ohh, and excellent point, BTW. |
|
Title: Re: We can all agree,... maybe... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/02/16 at 18:45:03 RAY, is there something in the post youpasted in that I should read? |
|
Title: Re: We can all agree,... maybe... Post by MnSpring on 11/02/16 at 20:50:10 This is how it works, in REAL !!!!! Here is a Tiny dog club. The 30 + Members, are a member of a larger club. Which is a member of a Larger Club. That Large Club, Makes the Rules ! Now, after the nice dinner, and drinks, and local, and State awards are given. Down to Business. “Who is going to the ‘NATIONAL’ this year?” Rather a big deal, if one if qualified, and even bigger if someone is going. (Could take 2-4 days of driving, or the flying, +) A, ’Spokesperson, or Delegate, or Representative’ is elected. Now the tinny tiny, ‘club’, votes, and TELLS, their, ’representative’, How to Vote, on the issues, (Which are outlined) The, ‘Representative’, (of that Club), VOTES, the, ‘CLUB’ Wishes. Regardless, of ’that person, personal, beliefs’. In Most cases, they do. If they do NOT. (It has happened on occasion) All, HE@@ Breaks Loose, at the Next Meeting. And that person, Never, NEVER, again, carries the, Tiny Tiney, Local, Club, ‘vote’, to the National Committee. NEVER. What MOST, of the ‘Politicians”, have Forgot. They are TOLD, what to do, by the people who PAY, them. And we, Neglect to NEVER Hire them Again !!!! |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |