keeper1 10 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 I think your reasoning goes to the heart of why we shouldn't elect members of the Judiciary. However, I disagree with your reasoning insofar as the legislative branch should be responsible to the people. ah, but should they be almost solely responsible to the people who can pool the most money for campaign contributions--campaign contributions given with the understanding that they will cause their interests to be disproportionately represented? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucfan64 309 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 I think your reasoning goes to the heart of why we shouldn't elect members of the Judiciary. However, I disagree with your reasoning insofar as the legislative branch should be responsible to the people. I am not sure that I understand what you are saying here, so forgive me on this one. Are you saying that the elected legislature should not be responsible to the people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucfan64 309 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Surprisingly, I understand your argument, and can see its validity. Part of the argument also holds true for having a full-time sitting legislature. The Founders did not foresee a day when our elected representatives are in session 12 months a year and do not spend the majority of their time living in their home communities. True, the job of a member of the legislature was not a 12 month a year job, the size and scope of government never called for it and the founders realized that if all these guys did were sit around the capital 12 months a year that they would INVENT things to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker 82 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 True, the job of a member of the legislature was not a 12 month a year job, the size and scope of government never called for it and the founders realized that if all these guys did were sit around the capital 12 months a year that they would INVENT things to do. And so they have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker 82 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 I think your reasoning goes to the heart of why we shouldn't elect members of the Judiciary. However, I disagree with your reasoning insofar as the legislative branch should be responsible to the people. I personally have long favored what was called the Missouri System for selecting judges. Judges are appointed for a 6 year term, and at the end of their term they stand for election on whether they should remain in that position. A yes vote means life term, and no means a new judge would be appointed. I don't know if they still use it, but it allowed the appointment of qualified folks who later would either gain or lose the position on how they had performed. What WV does with partisan election of judges strikes me as insane. There have been too many instances of Supreme Court seats being effectively bought by interest groups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 I am not sure that I understand what you are saying here, so forgive me on this one. Are you saying that the elected legislature should not be responsible to the people? No, no. I'm saying that I think your reasoning is an appropriate one for the argument when applied against electing members of the judiciary. You really described the argument better than I could've. However, your argument was for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which I'm against. I feel that the legislature should be solely responsible to the people, on realistic and idealistic grounds. Hence, I support the 17th Amendment and find it appropriate that we elect our legislators. Though, I do say there's merit behind your reasoning. It may take a day or two before I type coherently. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 I personally have long favored what was called the Missouri System for selecting judges. Judges are appointed for a 6 year term, and at the end of their term they stand for election on whether they should remain in that position. A yes vote means life term, and no means a new judge would be appointed. I don't know if they still use it, but it allowed the appointment of qualified folks who later would either gain or lose the position on how they had performed. What WV does with partisan election of judges strikes me as insane. There have been too many instances of Supreme Court seats being effectively bought by interest groups. *COUGH-MASSEY ENERGY-COUGH* But PA follows the WV system for electing judges, though PA does have 1 thing I like. PA has a forced retirement at age 70 for members of the judiciary. It's a wonderful thing, on so many levels. It keeps judges lucid and it keeps judges in place who are more apt to follow changes in the law. The Missouri system is interesting. It's better than just pure election. Though, I still have fundamental disagreement with electing members of the judiciary. I just believe that there should be one branch completely immune to the whims of the populace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucfan64 309 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 In my opinion, the 17th Amendment limits the responsiveness of senators to the views of the poor and working class. If Senators were elected by state legislators they would not be as loyal to Special Interest, especially special interest outside of their state. Why would a company from California spend millions of dollars to get a Senator elected in Virginia or some other state if they did not feel that the man would help them? This type of action would be drastically reduced if not eliminated if the 17th Amendment was repealed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Variable Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 In my opinion, the 17th Amendment limits the responsiveness of senators to the views of the poor and working class. If Senators were elected by state legislators they would not be as loyal to Special Interest, especially special interest outside of their state. Why would a company from California spend millions of dollars to get a Senator elected in Virginia or some other state if they did not feel that the man would help them? This type of action would be drastically reduced if not eliminated if the 17th Amendment was repealed. Honestly, unless people are actually getting paid to vote for someone, I dont really care. The people ultimately decide who gets into office. It is up to us to hold these people accountable. But I think that there should be a short season of actual legislation action say 4 months out of the year with a suspense time. This will let the important things get done and give everyone time to read bills and educate themselves and communicate to the people what it means. It will also ensure that the representatives stay close to home. You could always call emergency congressional meetings for times like war or dire financial situations or natural disasters ect...but business as usual is as you say, they are looking for work to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker 82 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 My idea is more dramatic than that. We live in a very high tech world where we are blessed with instant communications. Businesses teleconference meet through Skype or other online video services. I think that they should telecommute 3 weeks out of the month and meet in DC one week. This would allow them to interact more with the citizens they represent and less with the special interests. As it is now they represent their party first, the fat cats that bankroll them second and the people last. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucfan64 309 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) Honestly, unless people are actually getting paid to vote for someone, I dont really care. The people ultimately decide who gets into office. It is up to us to hold these people accountable. I get what you are saying here, but I think that you are missing the point of my argument. True the people "decide" who gets elected through the voting process. However, if you don't have enough money, you can't run for the office. Therefore, instead of having our elected STATE LEGISLATORS, selecting someone to the position of Senator, we now have big money interest filling the coffers of people who promise to complete their agenda if elected. The people are getting to "choose" the winner, but the choices they are being given, are not determined necessarily by people within the state. The deck is stacked the people THINK that they have a choice in this case. Before the 17th Amendment, the state legislators chose or elected a person to serve as a U.S. SENATOR. Usually, this person was one of the members of the state legislature, who had been elected by citizens of the state previously. At least under this system you were getting someone that was being elected based on a local state or regional preference. Edited February 25, 2011 by bucfan64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker 82 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 The other troubling thing is the fact that the Supreme Court held 2 years ago that $$$$ are speech and therefore protected under the 1st Amendment. This has led to obscene amounts of money being poured into elections nationwide. Heck just look at the record amounts that were spent by both sides in the 9th Congressional District race in November. But if money is speech, maybe the old vote buying efforts are now Constitutional. lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Variable Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 I get what you are saying here, but I think that you are missing the point of my argument. True the people "decide" who gets elected through the voting process. However, if you don't have enough money, you can't run for the office. Therefore, instead of having our elected STATE LEGISLATORS, selecting someone to the position of Senator, we now have big money interest filling the coffers of people who promise to complete their agenda if elected. The people are getting to "choose" the winner, but the choices they are being given, are not determined necessarily by people within the state. The deck is stacked the people THINK that they have a choice in this case. Before the 17th Amendment, the state legislators chose or elected a person to serve as a U.S. SENATOR. Usually, this person was one of the members of the state legislature, who had been elected by citizens of the state previously. At least under this system you were getting someone that was being elected based on a local state or regional preference. That sounds really incestuous and self-serving to local politicians who I do not trust anymore than national ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Variable Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 My idea is more dramatic than that. We live in a very high tech world where we are blessed with instant communications. Businesses teleconference meet through Skype or other online video services. I think that they should telecommute 3 weeks out of the month and meet in DC one week. This would allow them to interact more with the citizens they represent and less with the special interests. As it is now they represent their party first, the fat cats that bankroll them second and the people last. I like that too actually. A lot because there really is no need to actually convene in congress except for tradition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.