^^^^^
Assuming the state legislators aren't also corrupt.
In my state, they are.

The 17th Amendment was one of those “Progressive Era” amendments that got pushed through in the early 20th Century in the belief that “Big Government” could address the societal ills caused by “Big Finance”, corruption, urbanization, and other various social issues.

16th Amendment = Income Tax.
17th Amendment = Direct Election of Senators.
18th Amendment = Prohibition.
19th Amendment = Suffrage.

The 17th Amendment actually allowed for easier concentration of political influence into government. With direct election of senators instead of election by the various State Legislatures, it reduced the number of politicians that had to be bought off to control the Senate.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
Which is why the 17th Amendment should be abolished and we should go back to what the founders wanted. State legislatures need to appoint Senators.

"should be abolished" and "should go back" how do you get there Cowboy? Clue me in.

Actions often have unintended consequences. State legislature appointment of Senators would potentially entrench party leaders into these Federal positions. Of course, the first thing they would do is to make moves that reinforced their likelihood of being re-appointed. To my way of thinking, this would lead to an "old boy's network" of political professionals as if it were an actual occupation. I may well be wrong about this, but I would caution those calling for it to be careful what you wish for.

As far as VA goes, I am more than disgusted by "party officials" of both major parties, not to mention the State legislature and every single one of my elected Federal "representatives" (who don't represent any of the principals I hold dear).

Except for President Trump!

quote:

Originally posted by architect:
As far as VA goes, I am more than disgusted by "party officials" of both major parties, not to mention the State legislature and every single one of my elected Federal "representatives" (who don't represent any of the principals I hold dear).

Indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by Bytes:
"should be abolished" and "should go back" how do you get there Cowboy? Clue me in.

Another Amendment. It has been done before.

quote:

Originally posted by Bytes:


"should be abolished" and "should go back" how do you get there Cowboy? Clue me in.

Two numbers for you: 18 and 21

And those are amendments, not drinking ages (nudge nudge, wink wink)

quote:

Originally posted by AllenInAR:

Two numbers for you: 18 and 21

And those are amendments, not drinking ages (nudge nudge, wink wink)

Thanks for that, very informative. I had no clue util your post about amending the Constitution. You're going to bitch and moan or start another amendment movement? I think you and Gus are going to bitch an moan on an internet forum.

Ask a silly question, get a silly answer.

How else do you propose we solve the problem?

Wrtiing letters? Emails?

No. We need to get back to what the founders wanted. They were some pretty smart fellas Bytes,

There are 2 ways to amend the Constitution, per Article 5:

One is to have Congress write the Amendment which must then pass both Houses of Congress by a 2/3 vote; and then 3/4 of States ratify it. That the way it’s been done for all Amendments, so far. Don’t look for anything with a “term limits” concept to ever get through Congress !!!

Second method is for 2/3 of the various States to pass a call for a Constitutional Convention; and then ratify by 3/4 States or by State Conventions, as to what has been proposed.

Currently, there have been calls for another Convention, but have they have been limited to an Amendment for a “balanced budget”. Depending upon how these “calls” are counted, we could be short of a Convention by only a couple of States.

Thing is, this last method has only been used once, and that was when the “Articles of Confederation” were to be modified.

Hard to predict what happens at a Constitutional Convention, as everything is up for grabs then.

High gas prices?

In a way I understand to an extent prices jumping up.

But what I don’t get is We the United States produces more crude oil and natural gas than we consume. We export surplus crude and natural gas. We also have the national crude oil reserves that Trump announced that the reserves were going to be sold off.

With all of that being said how is the shutting down of the Hermosa Straights effecting our in country prices other then the world wide price of a Bbl of oil going up or down.

Guess what I thinking is how is this not price gouging during wartime/disaster.

It would seem like Trump would intervene on the Us consumers behalf and regulate pricing.

quote:

Originally posted by Mustang-PaPa:
But what I don’t get is We the United States produces more crude oil and natural gas than we consume. We export surplus crude and natural gas. We also have the national crude oil reserves that Trump announced that the reserves were going to be sold off.

true on natural gas but false on crude oil. I broke down crude oil yesterday.

I broke down the current SPR inventory on on Wed and on Thur broke down the SPR release.

quote:

Originally posted by Mustang-PaPa:
It would seem like Trump would intervene on the Us consumers behalf and regulate pricing.

Historically, there are two levers that the president can pull to modulate gasoline prices and for a while there was 2.5 levers:

release of crude oil from the SPR

having the EPA wave reformulated gas regulations. This this is coming soon and every spring it causes a temporary price increase due the entire gasoline logistics chain from the refinery to the gas station has to switch from conventional gasoline (i.e. high vapor pressure) to reformulate a gasoline (i.e. low vapor pressure to reduce summer evaporation) by adding oxygenates (e.g. ethanol) to avoid being fined by the EPA. It essentially doubles the gasoline formulas in a given market which cuts the gasoline storage in half.

Obamalamadingdong made a temporary northeast gasoline "SPR" after superstorm Sandy but as you would expect from that moron it was half assed, ineffective, offered negligible hurricane protection, and full of crony capitalism. The entire inventory of a sold off in 2024 by Biden and its tank leases cancelled. One of the few good decisions Biden made.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tatortodd,

---

Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity

DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer.

quote:

Originally posted by 2BobTanner:
There are 2 ways to amend the Constitution, per Article 5:

One is to have Congress write the Amendment which must then pass both Houses of Congress by a 2/3 vote; and then 3/4 of States ratify it. That the way it’s been done for all Amendments, so far. Don’t look for anything with a “term limits” concept to ever get through Congress !!!

Second method is for 2/3 of the various States to pass a call for a Constitutional Convention; and then ratify by 3/4 States or by State Conventions, as to what has been proposed.

Currently, there have been calls for another Convention, but have they have been limited to an Amendment for a “balanced budget”. Depending upon how these “calls” are counted, we could be short of a Convention by only a couple of States.

Thing is, this last method has only been used once, and that was when the “Articles of Confederation” were to be modified.

Hard to predict what happens at a Constitutional Convention, as everything is up for grabs then.

Not really...Regardless of any chicanery by the delegates, whatever Amendments emerge from an Article Five Convention of the States still need to be ratified by 75% of the States, so THIRTY-EIGHT State Legislatures. It's a steep bar for a reason! Put another way, THIRTEEN States can derail ANY amendment from being ratified. I say, Bring it...

Given the current Divded States of America, it’s a pipe dream to think we can ratify any new Amendment by the Convention of States method. It would be just political theater and a total waste of time.

Yes, Amendment XXI repealed XVIII. But XVIII was wildly unpopular, unenforceable and took only 14 years to be repealed. Those others have been in place for over a century. And who's to say direct election of Senators is any worse than the old way, appointment by state legislatures? Look at Virginia's, California's and other "blue" states. How would the old way be better? The outcome is still the same.

The Senate is nothing more than the House of Representatives with six year terms. We NEED to get back to what the founders wanted.

There was a reason for it.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
The Senate is nothing more than the House of Representatives with six year terms.
<snip>

Our Constitution says otherwise.

Yes it does.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
Yes it does.

But it was materially altered by the 17th amendment. Sure, it still has the powers delegated to it by the Constitution, but it not longer represents the states.

Imagine what it would look like if the 17th Amendment was repealed. No fewer than 56 R senators from the current 28 states where the GOP holds both legislative chambers, plus a bunch more from the divided states.

-Rob