What is a "militia" in the eyes of

Be interesting if one of them were to take a shot at one of the law enforcement officers. I bet they would re-consider their thinking about it being ok to shoot-it-up with anybody in the local greybar hotel.

Actually if either of you well educated gentlemen would read a little about the founding of this country you would know that is exactly what our forefathers had in mind with the 2nd amendment. Our government should be afraid of an armed citizenry. I myself have stocked up on ammo and other supplies. Not for the government but for the possibility of civil unrest when our economy collapse due to the debt we are incurring from the uncontrolled spending in Washington. One could believe the socialist theory of collapsing the system from within. Why are you shocked at what she is saying, it is the truth. Obummer isn't the answer.

quote:

Originally posted by ferrellj:
Actually if either of you well educated gentlemen would read a little about the founding of this country you would know that is exactly what our forefathers had in mind with the 2nd amendment. Our government should be afraid of an armed citizenry. I myself have stocked up on ammo and other supplies. Not for the government but for the possibility of civil unrest when our economy collapse due to the debt we are incurring from the uncontrolled spending in Washington. One could believe the socialist theory of collapsing the system from within. Why are you shocked at what she is saying, it is the truth. Obummer isn't the answer.

Armed rebellion is NOT the Constitutionally-prescribed response to one's party being voted out of power in favor of an opposing party. Sore losers, no matter how ideologically bruised they might find themselves when losing control after 8 years of having their moron in office, have no Second Amendment right to charge out with guns and re-order things along the lines of their partisan preferences.

From the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

quote:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

During the time of the Revolution, our country had two sets of troops; regular army, and militia.
In the War of 1812, the militia was in charge of defending Washington DC. They failed and the city was sacked and burned. However, at the defense of Baltimore and Ft McHenry , regular forces AND militia both under much better command repelled the British and as we know from the famous poem when set to an old British drinking song's tune became our beloved National Anthem. Andrew Jackson used a lot of militia with his regular troops to defend New Orleans as well.
All that to say , that at that time, a well trained, and well armed militia played a vital role in securing our freedom from Britain, NOT our own national government. There is a procedure for that kind of revolution, and that is a ballot box every 2 years, or if things are going so badly, the Constitution gives us a way to either change it, or write an entirely new document. I don't believe that overthrow of our government by armed means was ever an intention of the founding fathers.
If these TEA party nuts really want to overthrow the government, let them do the ground work necessary to call a constitutional convention and re-write the Constitution. Otherwise, they should accept the will of the majority of the people regardless of their opposition.

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:
During the time of the Revolution, our country had two sets of troops; regular army, and militia.
In the War of 1812, the militia was in charge of defending Washington DC. They failed and the city was sacked and burned. However, at the defense of Baltimore and Ft McHenry , regular forces AND militia both under much better command repelled the British and as we know from the famous poem when set to an old British drinking song's tune became our beloved National Anthem. Andrew Jackson used a lot of militia with his regular troops to defend New Orleans as well.
All that to say , that at that time, a well trained, and well armed militia played a vital role in securing our freedom from Britain, NOT our own national government. There is a procedure for that kind of revolution, and that is a ballot box every 2 years, or if things are going so badly, the Constitution gives us a way to either change it, or write an entirely new document. I don't believe that overthrow of our government by armed means was ever an intention of the founding fathers.
If these TEA party nuts really want to overthrow the government, let them do the ground work necessary to call a constitutional convention and re-write the Constitution. Otherwise, they should accept the will of the majority of the people regardless of their opposition.

You are right...to point. Armed rebellion, no Armed RESISTANCE, yes.

"they should accept the will of the majority of the people regardless of their opposition" Not only no, but Hell no...the majority has no right to infringe on the rights of the minority...That's supposedly what the Constitution is for...We are NOT a democracy.

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."


But you and BeterU and a lot of the Tea Party types are looking back at history from a Nationalistic view...that was NOT the view of our founders.

No, it was not the view of the founders and the next several generations "that overthrow of our government by armed means was ever an intention of the founding fathers."

There view and still the constitutional view was elections, resistance from the states if the federal government over reached, and ultimatlely if things could not be worked out...separation.

If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it....Thomas Jefferson.


It's not about "being a sore loser"...

I'm not so sure there is a lot of disagreement between us, although I don't care for being included in any way with this TEA party, because I think they are all kinda Glen Beck nuts.
When I said they should accept the will of the majority, I was referring to winning or losing an election. In an election, there will always be a winner, and a looser. I don't think that every time there is a looser, that side should seek armed conflict against the winner. What you stated had to do with "rights", and that is not the subject here with this crazy assed woman, but loosing an election.
As to a militia and it's intent , here is a section cut and past from the Constitution , Article 1 sec 8:
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To my way of reading that, a militia is for the purpose of enforcing the laws , ie: the Constitution, not for the overthrow of it, or the resistance of it. Constitution says so right here and they are at the calling of Congress, not some right-wing nut who dosn't like the way the last election turned out.

To your next point, I'm not sure separation is legal, there was some conflict over that point in the mid 1800's , as I am reminded whenever I find a minie ball in the yard, but Article 5 does provide a legal means to amend the Constitution, and it could be interpreted to mean a complete re-write. This can be driven by 2/3 of Congress, OR the legislatures of 2/3 of the states . Either can call for a change and constitutionally , it must happen. Don't see anywhere in there about separation of the states, or armed conflict.
Jefferson actually proposed that there be a constitutional convention called ever 20 or so years so as to "not have the living governed by the dead".
At any rate, I don't believe a militia should lawfully try by force to overthrow, or withdraw.

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:
I'm not so sure there is a lot of disagreement between us, although I don't care for being included in any way with this TEA party, because I think they are all kinda Glen Beck nuts.
When I said they should accept the will of the majority, I was referring to winning or losing an election. In an election, there will always be a winner, and a looser. I don't think that every time there is a looser, that side should seek armed conflict against the winner. What you stated had to do with "rights", and that is not the subject here with this crazy assed woman, but loosing an election.
As to a militia and it's intent , here is a section cut and past from the Constitution , Article 1 sec 8:
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To my way of reading that, a militia is for the purpose of enforcing the laws , ie: the Constitution, not for the overthrow of it, or the resistance of it. Constitution says so right here and they are at the calling of Congress, not some right-wing nut who dosn't like the way the last election turned out.

To your next point, I'm not sure separation is legal, there was some conflict over that point in the mid 1800's , as I am reminded whenever I find a minie ball in the yard, but Article 5 does provide a legal means to amend the Constitution, and it could be interpreted to mean a complete re-write. This can be driven by 2/3 of Congress, OR the legislatures of 2/3 of the states . Either can call for a change and constitutionally , it must happen. Don't see anywhere in there about separation of the states, or armed conflict.
Jefferson actually proposed that there be a constitutional convention called ever 20 or so years so as to "not have the living governed by the dead".
At any rate, I don't believe a militia should lawfully try by force to overthrow, or withdraw.

Well as far as separation being "legal", pretty much everyone prior to Dishonest Abe recognized the sovereignty of the people and their natural polity...the states. And of the several times "separation" was discussed prior to 1860, it came from New England and not the South...and the debate was always about "timing" and "prudence" and not if it was legal...it was a given.

To my way of reading that, a militia is for the purpose of enforcing the laws , ie: the Constitution, not for the overthrow of it, or the resistance of it. Constitution says so right here and they are at the calling of Congress, not some right-wing nut who dosn't like the way the last election turned out.


Well you see, there is the problem...enforcing the Constitution...No one in Washington follows the Constitution...So armed militias?...I'm not saying I agree with that...but the Constitution of the Founders is not what we follow today.

And that goes to my point of the intention of the 2nd Amendment...to resist tyranny of the central government...when you have a...what did you say? "crazy assed"? congresswoman who laughs in response to being asked about Constitutional authority for the things the congress does...well you see the problem.

To your next point, I'm not sure separation is legal, there was some conflict over that point in the mid 1800's , as I am reminded whenever I find a minie ball in the yard

Might doesn't make right...

Article 5 does provide a legal means to amend the Constitution, and it could be interpreted to mean a complete re-write.

Exactly right...and exactly the problem. There is a legal way to amend the Constitution. But that legal way is not by usurpation of power by the 3 branches of the central government...just because they do it and nobody says boo about it...doesn't make it Constitutional.

Example...if something was constitutional/unconstitutional in 1910...it would still be in 2010...barring an amendment. The meaning of the Constitution DOES NOT change with the times. Take minimum wage and direct income taxation. Laws for both were passed by congress and struck down by Supreme Court in the late 19th Century. We could agrue all day about the moral and ecomonic benefits of both these issues...but they were out side the enumerated powers of congress and the federal government. Rightful remedy if you want the fed's to be invovled...Amendment. That ofcourse happened with the income tax...but not the federal minimum wage...How? Usurpation of power by the central government.

So when you say citizens, Tea Party or not, should look to elections or Constitutional amendments or rewrites...misses the point.

The Constituion has been completely reversed from the form of federalism that was set up...in short...self government...home rule...So no constitutionally speaking, we don't need an amendment if we disagree with the way government is running today...The Fed's do...Simply because this government, and no I'm not just talking about the Big O...I mean going back at least 80 years if not all the way back to Dishonest Abe...is not the governmental system laid out in the Constitution.

What specific thing are you referring to when you say "no one in Washington follows the Constitution"

Taxes are constitutional:
Article 1 Section 8 (again)
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Not an amendment BTW.

The Second Ammendment:
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I don't see where it says a militia has the right to usurp the federal government be it good , bad, corrupt, or just don't like the outcome of an election. Taken with Article 1 Sec 8 what it says about the militia, one could deduct that a militia was a group of civilian soldiers subject to the will of Congress who had to supply their own weapons, in the understanding of the day, their own guns. Kinda like the National Guard if they had to provide for their own equipment.
As far as minimum wage, and whatever else you say is not constitutional, I would argue that the Constitution gives to Congress the right to legislate a "bill" and to the President the right to sign the "bill" making it "law" and if the Supreme Court accepts that the "law" does not violate the Constitution, then whatever is passed, be it minimum wage, or anything else then it IS IN FACT CONSTITUTIONAL.
If I were a smartass I would post the following link : http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/kids/howbill.asp .OOPS !

So , again , what exactly has happened recently that is not constitutional , except going to "war" without it being declared? (I still don't understand that one)

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:
What specific thing are you referring to when you say "no one in Washington follows the Constitution"

Taxes are constitutional:
Article 1 Section 8 (again)
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Not an amendment BTW.

The Second Ammendment:
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I don't see where it says a militia has the right to usurp the federal government be it good , bad, corrupt, or just don't like the outcome of an election. Taken with Article 1 Sec 8 what it says about the militia, one could deduct that a militia was a group of civilian soldiers subject to the will of Congress who had to supply their own weapons, in the understanding of the day, their own guns. Kinda like the National Guard if they had to provide for their own equipment.
As far as minimum wage, and whatever else you say is not constitutional, I would argue that the Constitution gives to Congress the right to legislate a "bill" and to the President the right to sign the "bill" making it "law" and if the Supreme Court accepts that the "law" does not violate the Constitution, then whatever is passed, be it minimum wage, or anything else then it IS IN FACT CONSTITUTIONAL.
If I were a smartass I would post the following link : http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/kids/howbill.asp .OOPS !

So , again , what exactly has happened recently that is not constitutional , except going to "war" without it being declared? (I still don't understand that one)

Again right...to a point...we have been using forces..."going to war" unconstitutionally since Korea. Your guy Truman started that.

I don't see where it says a militia has the right to usurp the federal government be it good , bad, corrupt

Well you miss the point of the Declaration, The Revolution, and the Constitution if you don't "see" the "right to usurp the federal government"...

The federal government would not exist if it were not for the sovereign citizens of each state...THEY created the government...THEY...or more correctly WE have the power...so WE can not usurp power...

Once again...the Constitution lays out specific, limited, enumerated powers...and when the 3, yes all 3 including the Supreme Court, go beyond those specific, limited, enumerated powers...THEY are usurping power...

Then it is the right of the people...through their states...protected by their militia to guard against tyranny...

See 10th Amendment...See Declaration Of Independence.

As far as income tax and minimum wage...I did not intend to argue those issues...merely pointing out that they both were deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL...one was remedied by constitutional measures...the other by usurpation of power...which pisses people like me off..

"then whatever is passed, be it minimum wage, or anything else then it IS IN FACT CONSTITUTIONAL."

That's the rule of "man"...a "living" constitution...not the rule of "law" which our Constitution is supposed to establish.

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:
What specific thing are you referring to when you say "no one in Washington follows the Constitution"

Taxes are constitutional:
Article 1 Section 8 (again)
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Not an amendment BTW.

The Second Ammendment:
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I don't see where it says a militia has the right to usurp the federal government be it good , bad, corrupt, or just don't like the outcome of an election. Taken with Article 1 Sec 8 what it says about the militia, one could deduct that a militia was a group of civilian soldiers subject to the will of Congress who had to supply their own weapons, in the understanding of the day, their own guns. Kinda like the National Guard if they had to provide for their own equipment.
As far as minimum wage, and whatever else you say is not constitutional, I would argue that the Constitution gives to Congress the right to legislate a "bill" and to the President the right to sign the "bill" making it "law" and if the Supreme Court accepts that the "law" does not violate the Constitution, then whatever is passed, be it minimum wage, or anything else then it IS IN FACT CONSTITUTIONAL.
If I were a smartass I would post the following link : http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/kids/howbill.asp .OOPS !

So , again , what exactly has happened recently that is not constitutional , except going to "war" without it being declared? (I still don't understand that one)

National Guards do provide some of their own equipment. Some, like Alabama, have armories equipped with state owned weapons.

Personally, if things do not change soon, I would be in favor of a constitutional convention.

don't give a damm who started them,
Korea-Truman
Vietnam- Eisenhower (but escalated by Johnson then used by Nixon to add to his corrupt power.
Gulf War 1 - Bush 1 (however I did support this, I j ust think it should have been declared)
Afghanistan- Bush 2 - should have been declared and fought to the finish .
Iraq - bush 2 should NEVER have happened, should never have been declared.

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Personally, if things do not change soon, I would be in favor of a constitutional convention.

What would you like to see changed ?

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Personally, if things do not change soon, I would be in favor of a constitutional convention.

What would you like to see changed ?

Term limits for congress, repeal of the 17th amendment, a more definitive second amendment, limits to the money supply, limited ability to go over budget, bright line laws, no NGOs to draw on the Treasury.

Congressmen, once in, use party and pork to hold their positions. Corruption is a given in such an atmosphere. Return election of senators to the states. Instead of ending corruption, it just consolidated it in DC. Better to spread the corruption among the 50 states, than consolidate it at K Street. Also, it would return the idea of Senators as ambassadors from the several states.

Limit currency to a certain amount and allow only a growth factor linked to population growth. Allow only about two percent over budget for most expenses. For infrastructure construction, treasuries could be issued, but linked to the fuel taxes, separate from the general fund. Obviously, a declaration of war would obviate the controls on budgets.

No more making law that must be interpreted by bureaucrats, pass bright line laws understandable by all. Agencies could still issued regulations based on the laws, if backed by hard science. No wheel chair lifts for lifeguard stands.

What do you have against the 17th amendment ?

I was not aware that Non Governmental Organizations draw from the treasury, so I plead ignorance here.
It's late, I'm tired, but I have always assumed that the election of Senators WAS done at the state level, what have I been voting on that I thought was for the office of Senator all these years. Sorry, that entire paragraph confuses me.

I can agree with much of what you say , as best as I can understand what you are trying to say. However, bills/laws that are too simple, are also simple to get around I would think. EVERYTHING cannot fit on a bumper sticker.

Guess I am from the backwoods sticks of hillbilly land , 'cause I ain't never seen a wheelchair lift on a lifeguard stand. (Hey, that rhymes )

quote:

What do you have against the 17th amendment ?

I can't speak for interventor. What I have against it...

If we're honest with ourselves, an election campaign is really no different than any good marketing/advertising campaign. It's just trying to convince people that your time in office will make them better off. This costs money, and those running for office need that money to win. If Senators were still appointed by state legislatures, the difficulty of buying influence in those legislatures would increase greatly. Sentors would once again be beholden to their states. As it stands now, one body of Congress yields great power. Having friends with that kind of power is very beneficial to those who can afford to buy them and finance their campaigns. Nearly all incumbent Senators receive sizable contributions from special interests that have no interest in the Senator's home state. They just want to make sure that votes in the Senate go their way. The 17th Amendment facilitates this.

Personally, I prefer a direct election of my senators , and it has worked pretty well since 1913.
you are correct about the corruption from K street. I believe that good campaign reform could go a long way to solve most of that problem, however.
I would propose, in the case of national office elections, that a certain ammount of air time be given (yes for free) to each candidate to state their case. After all, we , the citizens of the country, still own the airwaves, and an ammount of free air time should be a concession for the use by broadcasting.
(in addition, this would be better for us all in that we wouldn't have to listen to endless political adds)
Disallow campaign contributions from business and Pacs completely.
All campaigns should be financed by the Fed government. (it could be argued that this may run up the debt, but could be one thing worth buying)
I know I won't get my way, and neither will you, but we can dream.

Wow.

quote:

it has worked pretty well since 1913

Not really. It has allowed for out-of-control growth of government.

quote:

I would propose, in the case of national office elections, that a certain ammount of air time be given (yes for free) to each candidate to state their case.

"Free" doesn't exist. Everything costs something. Who pays for it?

quote:

Disallow campaign contributions from business and Pacs completely.

Just that, or completely repeal the First Amendment?

quote:

All campaigns should be financed by the Fed government. (it could be argued that this may run up the debt, but could be one thing worth buying)

What??? No campaigns should receive federal funding. I can't understand why we allow that law to stand.

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:
and it has worked pretty well since 1913.

Ummm...yeah, right...

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:
...you are correct about the corruption from K street. I believe that good campaign reform could go a long way to solve most of that problem, however...

Like repealing the 17th Amendment...if there is a part of the "Constitution" that is "unconstitutional"...it would be the 16th and 17th Amendments in regards to the Founding generations vision...

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:
Personally, I prefer a direct election of my senators , and it has worked pretty well since 1913.
you are correct about the corruption from K street. I believe that good campaign reform could go a long way to solve most of that problem, however.
I would propose, in the case of national office elections, that a certain ammount of air time be given (yes for free) to each candidate to state their case. After all, we , the citizens of the country, still own the airwaves, and an ammount of free air time should be a concession for the use by broadcasting.
(in addition, this would be better for us all in that we wouldn't have to listen to endless political adds)
Disallow campaign contributions from business and Pacs completely.
All campaigns should be financed by the Fed government. (it could be argued that this may run up the debt, but could be one thing worth buying)
I know I won't get my way, and neither will you, but we can dream.

Actually, it hasn't worked out well since 1913. Lobbyists were forced to work amongst the several states and try to influence many state representatives. This spread out the efforts they could make and diluted their effect. Now, they can directly influence 100 senators in DC. When elected by the state assemblies, senators acted as representatives of their states as an entity. This preserved the character of our federal republic -- it's not called the United States, for naught.

I've seen the effect of direct government subsidy of elections in Europe. It serves to keep the existing parties in power and their representatives. And, explains the revival of some rather nasty fringe elements in several of the countries.

As to stopping corporations and PACs for contributing, would you stop unions, as well?

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:
What do you have against the 17th amendment ?

I was not aware that Non Governmental Organizations draw from the treasury, so I plead ignorance here.
It's late, I'm tired, but I have always assumed that the election of Senators WAS done at the state level, what have I been voting on that I thought was for the office of Senator all these years. Sorry, that entire paragraph confuses me.

I can agree with much of what you say , as best as I can understand what you are trying to say. However, bills/laws that are too simple, are also simple to get around I would think. EVERYTHING cannot fit on a bumper sticker.

Guess I am from the backwoods sticks of hillbilly land , 'cause I ain't never seen a wheelchair lift on a lifeguard stand. (Hey, that rhymes )

As to the wheelchair left,

"CLEARWATER — Clearwater Beach's lifeguards are in great shape. Most were competitive swimmers in college. They routinely swim, run and lift weights to maintain their edge.

But government regulations are requiring that their headquarters on the beach be made handicapped-accessible, even though the only people who ever use the two-story building are the lifeguards.

Another example of your tax dollars at work."

More at: http://www.tampabay.com/news/l...-needs-to-be/1110467

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:
Personally, I prefer a direct election of my senators , and it has worked pretty well since 1913.
you are correct about the corruption from K street. I believe that good campaign reform could go a long way to solve most of that problem, however.
I would propose, in the case of national office elections, that a certain ammount of air time be given (yes for free) to each candidate to state their case. After all, we , the citizens of the country, still own the airwaves, and an ammount of free air time should be a concession for the use by broadcasting.
(in addition, this would be better for us all in that we wouldn't have to listen to endless political adds)
Disallow campaign contributions from business and Pacs completely.
All campaigns should be financed by the Fed government. (it could be argued that this may run up the debt, but could be one thing worth buying)
I know I won't get my way, and neither will you, but we can dream.

Actually, it hasn't worked out well since 1913. Lobbyists were forced to work amongst the several states and try to influence many state representatives. This spread out the efforts they could make and diluted their effect. Now, they can directly influence 100 senators in DC. When elected by the state assemblies, senators acted as representatives of their states as an entity. This preserved the character of our federal republic -- it's not called the United States, for naught.

I've seen the effect of direct government subsidy of elections in Europe. It serves to keep the existing parties in power and their representatives. And, explains the revival of some rather nasty fringe elements in several of the countries.

As to stopping corporations and PACs for contributing, would you stop unions, as well?

I would argue the real problem is uninformed people who vote straight line party, or even "for the person".
An informed citizenry should study the platform of the person, and vote for their platform. If they don't preform on their platform, replace 'em.
Too much emphasis place on crap that has nothing to do with performance or what we the people really need.

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:
Personally, I prefer a direct election of my senators , and it has worked pretty well since 1913.

Oh yeah, 1913 was a banner year...