Montana legislature considers bill to ban drinking and driving - Page 3 - VGF

Bomby · 04-02-2005, 12:19 AM

And all four of Montana's residents rejoiced.

Link47 · 04-02-2005, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philip55:
There is a proper way to modernize the Constitution, and that is by the amendment process.

For now, one of the best things to push for would be the repeal of the seventeenth amendment, which provides for the direct election of United States senators. That amendment has upset the fragile balance of power between the cosovereign federal and state governments.

The ammendment process is nearly impossible to do. Notice how there have only been 17 changes in over 200 years? The constitution is modernized through Supreme Court decisions and changes in society.

And the 17th ammendment was created to help get corruption out of the federal government, since the railroad barrons controlled the state legislators and thus controlled the senate. The people should have the power to directly elect their senators.

The Missing Link · 04-02-2005, 11:19 AM

^ That's irrelevant. If something exceeds the power as written in the Constitution, the legal process to get it added into the law is to write your Congresspeople to support it, pass an Amendment, have it signed by the Prez, and then hope the states ratify it. There's no other proper way to do something of that magnitude.

"There are some who call me... Link?"

"Carpe Gaium Domesticum!" (Seize the Cucco!)
Zelda: The Grand Adventures | Triforce MUCK
ザ行方不明リンク
悪いユウモアの賢人

Philip55 · 04-02-2005, 05:47 PM

Correct, The Missing Link - I would only point out that constitutional amendments are not actually signed by the president (unlike other legislation).

Other than that, I agree. There's a reason the amendment process was made so difficult.

With regard to the 17th amendment, the state legislatures are hardly filled with corruption. We the people directly elect the House. You might as well abolish the Senate as it is now - it serves no unique function.

Link47 · 04-02-2005, 06:09 PM

The Senate keeps the balance between small and large states by making them all equal. If you were to abolish the Senate then states like California would be able to boss around a state like Delaware or Rhode Island.

And at the time the 17th ammendment was ratified, the state legislators were often corruptted by the owners of the railroad.

Philip55 · 04-02-2005, 07:29 PM

You could say the same thing about large counties and small counties.

Yes, I suppose the Senate does still serve part of its intended role, but it does not actually serve the interests of the states, as situations like these make clear.

The way things were at the time of the ratification of the 17th amendment is irrelevant to today's world.

Link47 · 04-02-2005, 07:38 PM

Counties don't rule over other counties. Districts in each state are of similiar size (or at least are supposed to be) and they elect the legislature, not the counties.

Serving the interests of only their state leads to pork barrel spending. They are selected to represent their state at the federal level, not to get money thrown at their state.

And I suppose that every reason for creating something in the constitution is irrelevant now, since it is such an old document. No quartering troops? We don't need that one anymore. Someone hand me an eraser, I've got work to do!

Philip55 · 04-02-2005, 11:25 PM

So in other words, large counties rule over small counties.

It is in the interests of the state legislatures to eliminate pork barrel spending, so that federal taxes can be lowered, and they can impose their own tax burden in proportion, ensuring localized control.

Pork barrel spending would be unconstitutional if we didn't have the Supreme Court amending the document, as you stand behind.

Early 1900s state legislatures aren't going to pick the senators. Early 2000s state legislatures are.

I believe it is you who thinks the Constitution is outdated, and must be changed as the federal courts see fit.

The Missing Link · 04-03-2005, 09:17 AM

The purpose of the entire government is for it to be very slow to act. The founding fathers knew that the Constitution was never going to be enough for all future generations, but at the same time, they wanted both houses and the President to counterbalance one another so that most bills ended up in defeat.

I don't think that getting rid of the 17th Amendment will do anything to promote that cause.

"There are some who call me... Link?"

"Carpe Gaium Domesticum!" (Seize the Cucco!)
Zelda: The Grand Adventures | Triforce MUCK
ザ行方不明リンク
悪いユウモアの賢人

Link47 · 04-03-2005, 03:24 PM

Hey, I have an idea. Let's bring back slavery. After all, it will done by kind 21st century slave masters, not the mean old grumpy ones of the 19th century!

Philip55 · 04-07-2005, 12:03 PM

Nick · 04-07-2005, 03:13 PM

Coming out of a state that is generally plagued with rampant political corruption, good-ole-boy systems, and backroom-deal politics, I have absolutely no faith in the state legislature being able to put in a senator that would correctly represent or serve my state's interests. Changing the Senate position into an ambassedor style position again is extremely dangerous.

GRENTLEMEN · 04-07-2005, 03:28 PM

*witty picture reply*

Beam Yosho the Drunkard · 04-09-2005, 05:41 AM

BUNNY

04-02-2005, 12:19 AM	#41
Bomby All I Ever Wanted Was To Pick Apart the Day & Put the Pieces Back Together My Way Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: The People's Republic of Madison, WI Gender: Posts: 14,694 Thanks: 202 Thanked 447 Times in 315 Posts Blog Entries: 4 Points: 3,987.68 Bank: 1,932,597.03 Total Points: 1,936,584.71 Donate	And all four of Montana's residents rejoiced.

04-02-2005, 11:19 AM	#43
The Missing Link Professional Lurker Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: New Hyrule, Washington, US Gender: Posts: 15,575 Thanks: 80 Thanked 183 Times in 110 Posts Points: 6,806.45 Bank: 55,328.64 Total Points: 62,135.09 Donate	^ That's irrelevant. If something exceeds the power as written in the Constitution, the legal process to get it added into the law is to write your Congresspeople to support it, pass an Amendment, have it signed by the Prez, and then hope the states ratify it. There's no other proper way to do something of that magnitude. "There are some who call me... Link?" "Carpe Gaium Domesticum!" (Seize the Cucco!) Zelda: The Grand Adventures \| Triforce MUCK ザ行方不明リンク悪いユウモアの賢人

04-02-2005, 05:47 PM	#44
Philip55 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 142 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,567.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 5,067.00 Donate	Correct, The Missing Link - I would only point out that constitutional amendments are not actually signed by the president (unlike other legislation). Other than that, I agree. There's a reason the amendment process was made so difficult. With regard to the 17th amendment, the state legislatures are hardly filled with corruption. We the people directly elect the House. You might as well abolish the Senate as it is now - it serves no unique function.

04-02-2005, 06:09 PM	#45
Link47 Senior Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: USA Posts: 8,377 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 22,438.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 22,938.00 Donate	The Senate keeps the balance between small and large states by making them all equal. If you were to abolish the Senate then states like California would be able to boss around a state like Delaware or Rhode Island. And at the time the 17th ammendment was ratified, the state legislators were often corruptted by the owners of the railroad.

04-02-2005, 07:29 PM	#46
Philip55 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 142 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,567.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 5,067.00 Donate	You could say the same thing about large counties and small counties. Yes, I suppose the Senate does still serve part of its intended role, but it does not actually serve the interests of the states, as situations like these make clear. The way things were at the time of the ratification of the 17th amendment is irrelevant to today's world.

04-02-2005, 07:38 PM	#47
Link47 Senior Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: USA Posts: 8,377 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 22,438.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 22,938.00 Donate	Counties don't rule over other counties. Districts in each state are of similiar size (or at least are supposed to be) and they elect the legislature, not the counties. Serving the interests of only their state leads to pork barrel spending. They are selected to represent their state at the federal level, not to get money thrown at their state. And I suppose that every reason for creating something in the constitution is irrelevant now, since it is such an old document. No quartering troops? We don't need that one anymore. Someone hand me an eraser, I've got work to do!

04-02-2005, 11:25 PM	#48
Philip55 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 142 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,567.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 5,067.00 Donate	So in other words, large counties rule over small counties. It is in the interests of the state legislatures to eliminate pork barrel spending, so that federal taxes can be lowered, and they can impose their own tax burden in proportion, ensuring localized control. Pork barrel spending would be unconstitutional if we didn't have the Supreme Court amending the document, as you stand behind. Early 1900s state legislatures aren't going to pick the senators. Early 2000s state legislatures are. I believe it is you who thinks the Constitution is outdated, and must be changed as the federal courts see fit.

04-03-2005, 09:17 AM	#49
The Missing Link Professional Lurker Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: New Hyrule, Washington, US Gender: Posts: 15,575 Thanks: 80 Thanked 183 Times in 110 Posts Points: 6,806.45 Bank: 55,328.64 Total Points: 62,135.09 Donate	The purpose of the entire government is for it to be very slow to act. The founding fathers knew that the Constitution was never going to be enough for all future generations, but at the same time, they wanted both houses and the President to counterbalance one another so that most bills ended up in defeat. I don't think that getting rid of the 17th Amendment will do anything to promote that cause. "There are some who call me... Link?" "Carpe Gaium Domesticum!" (Seize the Cucco!) Zelda: The Grand Adventures \| Triforce MUCK ザ行方不明リンク悪いユウモアの賢人

04-03-2005, 03:24 PM	#50
Link47 Senior Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: USA Posts: 8,377 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 22,438.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 22,938.00 Donate	Hey, I have an idea. Let's bring back slavery. After all, it will done by kind 21st century slave masters, not the mean old grumpy ones of the 19th century!

04-07-2005, 12:03 PM	#51
Philip55 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 142 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,567.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 5,067.00 Donate

04-07-2005, 03:28 PM	#53
GRENTLEMEN Retro Nintendo Supermod Art & Literature Mod Metroid Mod Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I rub my tilde all over your asterisk Gender: Posts: 15,897 Thanks: 458 Thanked 1,164 Times in 632 Posts Points: 6,940.78 Bank: 1,830,360.28 Total Points: 1,837,301.06 Donate	witty picture reply

04-07-2005, 03:13 PM	#52
Nick Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 10,322.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 10,822.00 Donate	Coming out of a state that is generally plagued with rampant political corruption, good-ole-boy systems, and backroom-deal politics, I have absolutely no faith in the state legislature being able to put in a senator that would correctly represent or serve my state's interests. Changing the Senate position into an ambassedor style position again is extremely dangerous.

04-09-2005, 05:41 AM	#54
Beam Yosho the Drunkard Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The oversized rock of Hawaii. Gender: Posts: 5,665 Thanks: 5 Thanked 17 Times in 13 Posts Points: 22,479.39 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 22,979.39 Donate	BUNNY