Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Jeff Flake, who is running for Senate, wants you to know that he would like the 17th amendment repealed so that he can just be appointed instead of this whole election thing   (tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, Jeff Flake, U.S. Senate, Arizona Legislature, Louie Gohmert, amendments  
•       •       •

1650 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Aug 2012 at 9:54 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-08-14 07:59:35 AM  
Republicans REALLY hate democracy.
 
2012-08-14 08:13:13 AM  
Worked for Dubya.
 
2012-08-14 08:33:04 AM  
Aptly named, he is
 
2012-08-14 09:41:31 AM  

"I should just mention, on the 17th Amendment, I think it's better as it reinforces the notion of federalism to have senators appointed by state legislatures," Flake said, according to his campaign. "Having said that, I'm under no illusion that you'll ever go back because you have 100 senators who have been elected who would worry that they wouldn't be appointed and so I think we've probably crossed that Rubicon."


Yeah. THAT'S the reason we should keep the 17th Amendment.

I swear to God, my 11 year old niece would make a better member of Congress than some of these people, and she's struggling with multiplication and has recently started wearing only shades of pink.
 
2012-08-14 09:59:52 AM  
Jeff Flake, the Republican Arizona congressman who is running for U.S. Senate, would prefer if the voters of his state didn't have the chance to cast a ballot for him this year.

Found your problem.
 
2012-08-14 10:00:44 AM  
But even some Tea Party candidates have said repealing the amendment would be a step too far for them.

OH GOLLY HOW PROGRESSIVE OF YOU! Good Lord, this is what we've come to in this country?
 
2012-08-14 10:02:41 AM  
Move north. Buy land. Become a citizen. Kiss Tory ass.
 
2012-08-14 10:04:25 AM  
copsandcourts.com

It appears to me that you want to skip the arraignment process, go directly to trial, skip that, and get a dismissal.
 
2012-08-14 10:05:34 AM  
And yet how many people will vote for him?
 
2012-08-14 10:05:59 AM  
Remember our Founding Fathers wanted the Senate to be the House of Lords. That's why they have a longer term and were elected by the legislature. Much more flexibility on bribing your way into office. The House of Commons were to be elected by the citizens. The 17th amendment is a good thing. Hopefully one day we will get rid of the Electoral College and have true democratic elections.
 
2012-08-14 10:06:48 AM  

Pincy: And yet how many people will vote for him?


Depends on how nice his hair is.
 
2012-08-14 10:07:24 AM  

MacEnvy: Republicans REALLY hate democracy.


Apparently so did the the ratifiers of our Constitution.
 
2012-08-14 10:07:54 AM  
I'd trade direct election of Senators for direct election of the President
 
2012-08-14 10:08:40 AM  
Are people really that stupid to sit there and listen to that guy say such blasphemous farking-bullcrap... Talk about the definition of Sheep over there in Arizona.
 
2012-08-14 10:08:52 AM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: Remember our Founding Fathers wanted the Senate to be the House of Lords. That's why they have a longer term and were elected by the legislature. Much more flexibility on bribing your way into office. The House of Commons were to be elected by the citizens. The 17th amendment is a good thing. Hopefully one day we will get rid of the Electoral College and have true democratic elections.


I look at the Electoral College as another check on the system. It has its flaws but so does electing a President by straight popular vote.
 
2012-08-14 10:09:07 AM  

gingerjet: MacEnvy: Republicans REALLY hate democracy.

Apparently so did the the ratifiers of our Constitution.


The ratifiers also hated black people and had never heard of Mexicans. Things change, and so does the Constitution.
 
2012-08-14 10:09:47 AM  

gingerjet: Cat Food Sandwiches: Remember our Founding Fathers wanted the Senate to be the House of Lords. That's why they have a longer term and were elected by the legislature. Much more flexibility on bribing your way into office. The House of Commons were to be elected by the citizens. The 17th amendment is a good thing. Hopefully one day we will get rid of the Electoral College and have true democratic elections.

I look at the Electoral College as another check on the system. It has its flaws but so does electing a President by straight popular vote.


Go on...
 
2012-08-14 10:11:40 AM  

gingerjet: MacEnvy: Republicans REALLY hate democracy.

Apparently so did the the ratifiers of our Constitution.


Yep. Senators were supposed to represent the States, not the People. Then again, you can't rapidly grow government if one of the houses isn't beholden to the dumb masses by popular elections.
 
2012-08-14 10:12:02 AM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: Remember our Founding Fathers wanted the Senate to be the House of Lords. That's why they have a longer term and were elected by the legislature. Much more flexibility on bribing your way into office. The House of Commons were to be elected by the citizens. The 17th amendment is a good thing. Hopefully one day we will get rid of the Electoral College and have true democratic elections.


They also thought that serving in congress was to be something you did briefly, taking some time off the farm, serve for a little while and go back to the farm. Now we have people who see congress as an entry level position and sit there till they die. I guess things change. Some for the better, some not.
 
2012-08-14 10:15:14 AM  
Who represents the interests of the state govt in Washington?

Everyone complains about the system they demand be in place. You want a popularity contest? Then stop complaining when candidates pander. Stop complaining when pork spending and bridges to nowhere are built.

You can have all the ice cream you want. You're an adult. But don't complain about being malnourished and having toothaches.
 
2012-08-14 10:15:47 AM  
Is there any Amendment after the 12th that Republicans like?
 
2012-08-14 10:19:25 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Is there any Amendment after the 12th that Republicans like?


The 18th?
 
2012-08-14 10:23:29 AM  
Pre 17th amendment:

"Caucuses" were frequently held and the state legislatures would rubber stamp who the voters approved
 
2012-08-14 10:25:25 AM  
I've yet to hear a good reason why we shouldn't just eliminate the Senate altogether.
 
2012-08-14 10:27:45 AM  

Doak: I've yet to hear a good reason why we shouldn't just eliminate the Senate altogether.


reidreport.com
 
2012-08-14 10:28:42 AM  

Doak: I've yet to hear a good reason why we shouldn't just eliminate the Senate altogether.


Same reason you don't remove all the coolant from your engine.
 
2012-08-14 10:29:12 AM  
I'll just put this here because I don't know where else to put it, but what happened to the "O'brien reads TPM!!!" thread?
 
2012-08-14 10:31:02 AM  

quatchi: Doak: I've yet to hear a good reason why we shouldn't just eliminate the Senate altogether.

Same reason you don't remove all the coolant from your engine.


Pfffft--you only need that stuff in the summer anyway, and if you go fast enough the wind will cool the engine off.
 
2012-08-14 10:32:16 AM  

Paul Baumer: I'll just put this here because I don't know where else to put it, but what happened to the "O'brien reads TPM!!!" thread?


It got redlit/withdrawn because the link was borked. Would be nice if the mods left a note for everyone when they did that, I think.
 
2012-08-14 10:35:10 AM  

Lochsteppe: Paul Baumer: I'll just put this here because I don't know where else to put it, but what happened to the "O'brien reads TPM!!!" thread?

It got redlit/withdrawn because the link was borked. Would be nice if the mods left a note for everyone when they did that, I think.


Danke, senor.
 
2012-08-14 10:35:25 AM  

Doak: I've yet to hear a good reason why we shouldn't just eliminate the Senate altogether.


Fark it, I say we go the opposite direction. Let's cobble together a House of Lords, comprised of the top 100 Job Creators, re-configured every ten years. They can wear wigs and robes and ponderously thunder about how taxation is theft and socist communist Chicago thugs, but they won't have any actual power besides throwing the first baseball for the World Series. Each vote they make costs $10 million payable to the Treasury, and any bills they pass would be ceremoniously handed to the President on a silver platter and be framed in the Lincoln Bedroom, but would have no binding authority.
 
2012-08-14 10:36:04 AM  
The only amendment that should be repealed is the 22nd.
 
2012-08-14 10:42:56 AM  
As a rule, anything that gives more power to a state legislature is stupid.
 
2012-08-14 10:46:03 AM  
Much more flexibility on bribing your way into office.

Or... a group of legislators that served the interests of the state as a check on federal overreach, but sure, we'll go conspiracy.
 
2012-08-14 10:49:03 AM  
I would have no problem with the 17th going away. Too many elected people spend all their time taking bribes and campaigning already.
 
2012-08-14 10:49:21 AM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: Remember our Founding Fathers wanted the Senate to be the House of Lords. That's why they have a longer term and were elected by the legislature. Much more flexibility on bribing your way into office. The House of Commons were to be elected by the citizens. The 17th amendment is a good thing. Hopefully one day we will get rid of the Electoral College and have true democratic elections.


Our Founding Fathers also intended for only white male land owners be able to vote and that slavery was legal, so there's that.
 
2012-08-14 10:57:31 AM  
As I understand it, the point of the state legislatures appointing Senators was having the Senate represent the states, and the House representing the people. Hence why the latter is apportioned based on population, while the former is two per state. It was supposed to balance out the big state/little state controversy. It was kind of a mock House of Lords type of deal. If you look at all the weird rules in the Senate (Some bills have to have a 60/40 to pass, some don't, filibustering is okay, and so on) it seems it really was intended to be the "upper house" where the landed gentry made sweetheart deals in order to get things passed.

If you had two guys per state who represented state governments, then in theory you had one hundred guys working to represent those states' interests and protect the division of powers between state and federal governments. On the other hand in the House, you had representatives popularly elected, so they were supposed to be representing people directly. Like a lot of things in our government, there were checks and balances built within Congress to make things move slower. The 17th Amendment essentially made the houses of Congress redundant. Both were popularly elected, except one is apportioned by population and one is arbitrarily assigned two Senators per state. It kept the states evened out in representation and removed representation by state governments in Congress.

Personally, I'm pretty "meh" about this whole thing. The 17th was ratified ages ago, so who the hell cares, honestly, other than the "Strict Constitutionalists" who always want to ignore/change the parts of the document they don't like?

/There should be a third house of Congress.
//The House of Beer and Strippers
 
2012-08-14 11:14:32 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Cat Food Sandwiches: Remember our Founding Fathers wanted the Senate to be the House of Lords. That's why they have a longer term and were elected by the legislature. Much more flexibility on bribing your way into office. The House of Commons were to be elected by the citizens. The 17th amendment is a good thing. Hopefully one day we will get rid of the Electoral College and have true democratic elections.

Our Founding Fathers also intended for only white male land owners be able to vote and that slavery was legal, so there's that.


Yeah, thank goodness they provided for a way to "amend" what they had done.
 
2012-08-14 11:37:50 AM  

cdn.bleacherreport.net

RIP Jeff Blake

 
2012-08-14 11:47:49 AM  

Paul Baumer: Lochsteppe: Paul Baumer: I'll just put this here because I don't know where else to put it, but what happened to the "O'brien reads TPM!!!" thread?

It got redlit/withdrawn because the link was borked. Would be nice if the mods left a note for everyone when they did that, I think.

Danke, senor.


Bitte, mi hermano.
 
2012-08-14 12:23:22 PM  
I have to agree with Flake on this one. The 17th Amendment was the beginning of the decline of power residing in the states and the huge power grab from the Federal Gov. The Senate was designed to slow the Federal Gov growth and limit its power. Once the states stopped appointing the senators, the kids began controlling the credit cards. Look where that has gotten us to. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they designed the government the way they did. So in agreeing with Flake also make me agree with the founding fathers.
 
2012-08-14 12:38:25 PM  
He thinks that direct election of Senators was "crossing the Rubicon."

The Rubicon was a small river in Italy. When Caesar, with proconsular authority, crossed it, he violated the Roman constitution, and kicked off a civil war that ended with all traces of Roman democracy (such as it was) swept away forever. The outward appearance remained for a while, but from then on, it was one man, the emperor, who had all the real power. That was what crossing the Rubicon meant: overturning centuries of constitutional tradition to ensure that one man obtained the power he believed belonged to him.

So to this guy, direct representation was a violent overturning of constitutional tradition so that the citizens could have the power they believe belongs to them.
 
2012-08-14 01:46:04 PM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: Yeah, thank goodness they provided for a way to "amend" what they had done.


Oooo, just like the Senatorial election rules were changed!
 
2012-08-14 02:15:09 PM  
Here's the thing: The 17th Amendment (like all, so far) was passed through the Senate by a 2/3 vote. It was approved by 3/4 of the states. The Amendment was proposed because of the mind-boggling corruption endemic in the then-current procedure. So, the vast majority of the people who were directly benefiting from the original procedure actively decided that giving up that power was better than having it. If the beneficiaries of a power structure consider it so broken that they voluntarily give it up, you have to conclude it was fundamentally broken.
 
2012-08-14 02:17:18 PM  

cgw_niu: I have to agree with Flake on this one. The 17th Amendment was the beginning of the decline of power residing in the states and the huge power grab from the Federal Gov. The Senate was designed to slow the Federal Gov growth and limit its power. Once the states stopped appointing the senators, the kids began controlling the credit cards. Look where that has gotten us to. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they designed the government the way they did. So in agreeing with Flake also make me agree with the founding fathers.


Wait, I thought it was the Civil War that did all that. I can never keep up with when the Roman Republic in America ended ...
 
2012-08-14 03:18:20 PM  

gingerjet: I look at the Electoral College as another check on the system. It has its flaws but so does electing a President by straight popular vote.


I used to think this too, but I've been backing off of the position. Since the Electoral College is weighted by population, what need does it really serve?

I certainly don't believe that each state should have one vote for president... but that's the only way an Electoral College would really "mean" anything.
 
2012-08-14 05:16:01 PM  

cgw_niu: Once the states stopped appointing the senators, the kids began controlling the credit cards.


If you look at deficit spending, the first kid to really ramp that up without a war on was Ronald Reagan. Care to rework your analogy?
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report