Comments on: Why Russ Feingold’s Proposal to Amend the 17th Amendment is a Good Idea (and Why George Will is Completely Wrong)

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:53:54 +0000

Given George Will's “checkered” track record, I'm not at all surprised to see him on the shaky side of this issue. Feingold's proposal makes good sense to me. It would be a small blow against cronyism, and put just a little bit of government back into the hands of the people. Is this such a bad thing?

By: PJBFan

PJBFan — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:36:30 +0000

And once again, it is obvious to me that George Will is absolutely correct. The Seventeenth Amendment did violence to the very ideal of a balanced legislature where the interests of the State governments are respected, and the Feingold plan does even further violence to the rights of the States.

We are a federal republic. This means that we need a chamber that represents not the people of the State, but the States themselves, and the governments thereof. That is what the Senate was supposed to be until the Patronage system forced a reform that devastated the power of the States, along with the Fourteenth Amendment, which did much the same thing.

I make two proposals...repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and the vast majority of the Fourteenth. We can restore this Republic to its glorious form. Feingold's proposal will move us further away from a federal republic, and closer to a gigantic nation, with powerless political subdivisions.

By: Lit3Bolt

Lit3Bolt — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:46:04 +0000

Well, like SD notes (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) the Republican party is largely screwed with the WASPy corner they've painted themselves into. With browning and Spanglishing of America coming in the future, all elections are viewed with deep suspicion by the GOP.

What it really comes down to is the 2010 census. If the Republicans continue their losing streak (at this point, no one can really say, so let's say 50-50), the Democrats will then have invulnerable majorities to carry out a redistricting favorable to them. Then people won't be talking about the GOP being out in the wilderness, people will doubt the very survival of the party itself, a watershed event in American politics.

That's why the GOP is so shrill nowadays. They're fighting to even survive as a party. They can't wait for the next good ol' boy to come along to save them 4 or 8 years down the road.