Jump to content

Repeal the 17th Amendment


RETIREDFAN1

Recommended Posts

This nation will not be able to return to the status of a true federal republic as our Founders intended, until the 17th Amendment is repealed and the selection of Senators is returned to the State Legislatures. The Founders intended for the Senate to be the body of Congress that represented the states. With the 17th Amendment, the Senate is no different from the House. What is needed is an Article V convention with the express purpose of repealing the 17th amendment and returning the selection of Senators back to the original intent of the Founders

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This nation will not be able to return to the status of a true federal republic as our Founders intended, until the 17th Amendment is repealed and the selection of Senators is returned to the State Legislatures. The Founders intended for the Senate to be the body of Congress that represented the states. With the 17th Amendment, the Senate is no different from the House. What is needed is an Article V convention with the express purpose of repealing the 17th amendment and returning the selection of Senators back to the original intent of the Founders

 

Without regard to what system we use and not disagreeing with your premise.......

 

Your argument seems invalid by invoking the Constitution and its original intent as a reason to repeal the amendment. 

 

You say correctly that the Constitution set it up for state legislatures to elect its own Senators. But...... the same Constitution also makes amendments possible in case people's opinions of what the law or rights should be change. Apparently the people made their decision. Those same people also ended slavery by amendment, guaranteed due process for "everyone", the right to keep and bear arms, limit how many times a person can be the president, guaranteed the right to privacy and so on. Which ones of those that are not in the Constitution do you want to give up and get back to the original intent? 

Again, it is not to disagree with your position but arguing intent of the Constitution as opposed to any amendment seems invalid as an argument when you stack it up against other amendments where there was no original intent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without regard to what system we use and not disagreeing with your premise.......

 

Your argument seems invalid by invoking the Constitution and its original intent as a reason to repeal the amendment. 

 

You say correctly that the Constitution set it up for state legislatures to elect its own Senators. But...... the same Constitution also makes amendments possible in case people's opinions of what the law or rights should be change. Apparently the people made their decision. Those same people also ended slavery by amendment, guaranteed due process for "everyone", the right to keep and bear arms, limit how many times a person can be the president, guaranteed the right to privacy and so on. Which ones of those that are not in the Constitution do you want to give up and get back to the original intent? 

Again, it is not to disagree with your position but arguing intent of the Constitution as opposed to any amendment seems invalid as an argument when you stack it up against other amendments where there was no original intent. 

You are correct, the people of THAT time allowed tyranny to take hold by ratifying this amendment among others...... IF I can get the People of TODAY to see how their ancestors screwed up and allowed tyranny to take hold in 1913, maybe the people of TODAY will make it their choice to repeal it in order to regain liberty..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct, the people of THAT time allowed tyranny to take hold by ratifying this amendment among others...... IF I can get the People of TODAY to see how their ancestors screwed up and allowed tyranny to take hold in 1913, maybe the people of TODAY will make it their choice to repeal it in order to regain liberty..........

 

I honestly think that you are going to have a hard time convincing the people that allowing them to vote for their own senator is tyranny. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly think that you are going to have a hard time convincing the people that allowing them to vote for their own senator is tyranny.



I said it led to the tyranny.....the Senate was set up to represent the interests of the states....the House was set up to represent the interests of the people.....things are out of balance and as more people begin to wake up and see that, I believe that it will be an easy sell......
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,206
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Ceb2000
    Newest Member
    Ceb2000
    Joined


  • Posts

    • You got a LOT more than that, you’ve got Riceland filling up. GCM is dropping down from 23-6A back down to 5A in ‘26.  GCCISD is redrawing attendance zones to make sure of that.  At the same time, BH was only about 100 students under the 6A threshold last time UIL drew districts so BH is definitely going up to 6A when those maps get redrawn, probably right into the empty spot in 23-6A GCM is leaving when they drop down.
    • Like I said, even if it’s only 10% of the 100 kids BHISD takes from GCCISD each year, that’s 10 athletes per year and that’s being generous.  You’re right about the jobs with BHISD, BTW.  There’s more than 1 athlete from Baytown originally who got transferred to BHISD after a job opened up for Mama.
    • Here’s a link to another story about it This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up
    • It’s behind a paywall but here’s Baytown Sun’s story on it.  It was reported on in other papers statewide so if you search by the date I think you’ll find other stories on it. UIL strengthens student transfer rules By Ron McDowell [email protected] Oct 18, 2024   In order to maintain a level playing field for all member schools, the University Interscholastic League strengthened rules regarding transfer student eligibility at its most recent meeting in Austin. Every year thousands of students transfer schools in the state of Texas. A student’s ability to participate in UIL sanctioned activities may be limited base on the reasons for the transfer. A change in family status, work transfers, enrollment in an academic magnet program, or a move across town, receive scrutiny, but only rarely does one of these reasons result in the loss of eligibility. The only reason to automatically cause the loss of participation eligibility is a transfer for athletic purposes. The current rule, which has been in place since 1981, does not require a Previous Athletic Participation Form (PAPFs) to be submitted if the student-athlete does not participate in a varsity level sport during the first year of enrollment. There has been growing concern among some member schools, that other members are breaking the current rule and creating “super teams” with new transfer enrollees, and that the UIL is not doing enough to police, what appear to be, the inordinate number of transfers among high school athletes. To mitigate these concerns, the UIL approved a proposal to expand the power of the State Executive Committee (SEC) and allow it to investigate schools based upon the number of PAPFs submitted. Schools that submit an inordinate number of PAPFs would face heightened scrutiny and possible public reprimand and future sanctions. The UIL has also changed the requirements for PAPF submission, mandating that the form be submitted before a grade 9-12 transfer student may participate at any level of school athletics. This is a marked departure from the current policy which encourages schools not to complete PAPFs for students who transfer in, if the school believes that the student will not play a varsity sport in the first year the student is enrolled at the new school. Some critics of the current system think that the change doesn’t go far enough. Speaking on background, one local school district source suggested that there should be an automatic year wait for transfer students due to the number of loopholes in the waiver process. “If a student transfers, it should be a year out of competition automatically,” the source said. In addition, the UIL also approved a proposal that gives the SEC the power to appoint an independent administrator to oversee the conduct of the local District Executive Committee (DEC) if it is determined that the DEC is not consistently enforcing the rules of the governing body. The change is significant since all appeals that a school brings, starts and usually ends with the DEC. That includes the determination of transfer student eligibility. It is believed that with the implementation of this change, schools in a UIL district will be less likely to face retribution from the DEC chair and other members. The policy changes will go into effect, Aug. 1, 2025 This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up  
    • I was hoping WOS was going to win. To get another chance to redeem ourself. Silsbee did not look good in that game and has not played consistent during the season. Hopefully against La Vega they will play 4quarters of football
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...