Ok...I just didn't want to pick at this emotional scab again, but after seeing a bumper sticker yesterday, I just can't help myself.

The sticker in question read: "Re-elect Gore in '04".

This sticker obviously has a number of meanings to it.

First, whoever believes that Gore should be "re-elected" is obviously living in denial because to the best of my knowledge, Gore didn't win any office that would be up for re-election in 2004.

Second, it's obviously a protest message from the 2000 election. Again, denial plays a huge role here. The fact that this sticker even exists tells me that there are still a number of people that simply refuse to accept the reality and finality of the 2000 election.

Third: See my first question below. It screams to me that these people have no regard for the laws of this country (again, I think there's an element of denial here too). They just will not let go of the fact that while Gore did get more popular votes, that is simply not the way the outcome of the election is decided.

So here are my two questions for all of you Gore followers:

1. Although Gore did win the popular vote (and there is no questioning that), the law of the land states that the winner is to be decided by the Electoral Vote. Gore did not win that, so how can you state that he won? If you don't like the election process, fine. Change it. AFTER THE FACT. You can't go around changing the rules retroactively because you weren't happy with the outcome. We all know the only reason Florida came under such scrutiny is because the entire election was hinged on it. If the race wasn't so close, the mess never would've happened.


2. The ongoing recounts. Many of you Gore proponents argued that had the recounts been allowed to continue (without the intervention of the Supreme Courts), that Gore "eventually" would've won. Apparently, the "momentum was with him"; each recount showed Gore gaining more and more votes.
So my question to you is: The laws of Florida (and all other states) state that all recounts and ballot disputes must be settled by a certain date. Both sides agreed to this beforehand. When the deadline passes, regardless of whether all votes are counted or not, whoever is ahead at that time shall be declared the winner. And we all know who that was.

Someone once told me a perfect analogy to this, which I can't wait to here you Gore-ites attempt to refute.

"Picture a horse race. If horse A "Lucky Gore" is behind of horse B "Bumbling George" by five lengths going into the final lap of the race, it does not matter that horse A narrows that gap to only two lengths by the time they cross the finish line. He still lost. Even though he may have been gaining, and had the race been allowed to continue for X amount of time, he might've eventually won. But the finish line is the finish line. It is predetermined before the race begins, and the bottom line is, whoever crosses it first, is the winner, plain and simple."

Sounds like a Bush supporter can't take a joke. Get over it already.

Just wait till I get home  

>Sounds like a Bush supporter can't take a joke.

A JOKE?! What an expensive, unnecessary waste of money then.

No, I don't think so. Wrong answer- try again.

Actually Raddog, sounds like at least TWO bush supporters can't take a joke...

A JOKE?! What an expensive, unnecessary waste of money then.
Perhaps you wont mind if I cite a couple of others of the conservatives' doing:
1)"Guck Fore"
2)"Honk if you voted for Gore. It's the big button in the middle of your steering wheel"
3)"Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I with my gun"

So Matt, can't accept the truth that Gore won, huh? Isn't receiving 350,000 more votes than your opponent considered to be "winning?" Oh wait, with your idiotic Bush in office, no it would not.

Can't wait for N312RC to refute that statement, only except with his "FUCK LIBERALS" [sic.] ignorance.

BTW, since you won, what more do you have to complain about?

Tupolev - wait till you see Hairyass's comments. I am sick of these God Damn Liberals blah blah blah, typical conservative bullshit...

During the race, gore supporters like me never had signs out saying"Bush sucks" or stuff like that, but the republicans had signs like "Sore Loserman" and the ones that Aer Lingus mentioned. Also, the date should be when all the votes are counted as one of Florida's chief election officials described it as a "slap in the face". In my mind, we should just use the popular vote because who ever wins that is the guy who the people really want.
rgds,
blink182

>>>First, whoever believes that Gore should be "re-elected" is obviously living in denial because to the best of my knowledge, Gore didn't win any office that would be up for re-election in 2004.<<< All votes were not counted. Bush was SELECTED to be the President.

>>>Second, it's obviously a protest message from the 2000 election. Again, denial plays a huge role here. The fact that this sticker even exists tells me that there are still a number of people that simply refuse to accept the reality and finality of the 2000 election<<< They have freedom of speech. If you don't like it, you can protest too.

>>>Third: See my first question below. It screams to me that these people have no regard for the laws of this country (again, I think there's an element of denial here too). They just will not let go of the fact that while Gore did get more popular votes, that is simply not the way the outcome of the election is decided.<<< And you're the saint? It's not like they're storming the White House, although they should.

Also, you will not convert anyone into supporting Dubya.

Mr Tupolev:

Apparently you need to re-read my post. 350,000 more votes doesn't mean schidt if it still means you lost the Electoral vote!!!! That is the point the the Gore folks just refuse to digest and accept. The number of Electoral votes is what decides the outcome of the election, not the number of popular votes (as they have been arguing fervently, but in vain).

If you don't like the Electoral College (I'm not a big fan of it either, and for the same reasons you probably don't like it), perhaps we can get it changed. In spite of those shortcomings, it was and is still the law of the land, and we need to abide by the rules thereto.
And in doing so, we do it, and apply the new rules in the NEXT election.

1. See question two.

2. Those dates passed because Bush kept stalling the process, desparately trying to hold on to his shaky lead (which he knew wouldn't last).

Next!


Still 'Nuts

Do you think you might be reading too much into this? I mean, when I see an "I Brake for Nothing" sticker, I still assume that should the need arise, that car will brake. You follow?'


Still 'Nuts

>Perhaps you wont mind if I cite a couple of others of the conservatives' doing...

Ok, maybe you didn't understand me. The post I responded to left the impression that the whole Gore thing was a big joke and we need to laugh about it.


Whats wrong with the Electoral College, Matt? It is a true republican form of electing our President, just as it should be. We're no democracy.

The same with electing US Senators. It shouldn't be a public vote. It should be just as it was outlined in the Constitution, a vote in the state legislature (Article I, Section 3) that selects the senator.

Sigh... what is this country turning into?

I remember that after Bush won* the election, republicans were holding signs in front of the Vice President's House saying, "Get out of Cheney's house!" Even though it was still Gore's house for another month or so. Just shows true conservative impatience and ignorance.

Me, having liked Gore and hate Bush's policies to this day just simply accept the results. I think Gore said something like this
"Although I heavily disagree with the Court decision, I accept it"

Pacific

...and they were led by Matt.

He left the bait, and the usual suspects were ready to jump-to. Good sport, one supposes.

I know we'll never resolve the debate over the election, here or in any other forum. Each side chooses to recall only the facts and spin they find appealing.

But if you want a scapegoat for the mess, look to the TV networks, without whose early, imprudent and unsupportable calls of Florida, we would have almost certainly had a stable ending.

FWIW, I like N400QX's response best.

"The post I responded to left the impression that the whole Gore thing was a big joke and we need to laugh about it."

Well, apparently N400QX/N766AS, you're the only one with that impression. The sheer hysteria you conservatives work yourselves into is hilarious. You see a funny bumper sticker and all of a sudden you're screaming that "these people have no regard for the laws of this country" blah blah blah. It's cartoonish.

As for scrapping the direct election of senators because it's unconstitutional, I find you woefully ignorant. Remember the 17th Amendment? Or is the 2nd the only one worth keeping in your opinion? While you're scrapping the 17th Amendment, why not scrap everything else and deny women and minorities the vote, just like the original Constitution provided? Read the whole document, not just the parts you like.

>You see a funny bumper sticker and all of a sudden you're screaming that "these people have no regard for the laws of this country" blah blah blah

Yeah, ok... I wasn't even talking about bumper stickers.

>Remember the 17th Amendment?

Oh, of course. If you had read my post, you would have noticed that I said "...as outlined in the Constitution..." It is true that the better way to elect Senators is outlined in the Constitution (Article I, Section 3)? I say repeal the 17th Amendment.

>Or is the 2nd the only one worth keeping in your opinion?

No. The First through 15th Amendments should stay where they are. If you want to talk about getting rid of amendments, let's look at the 16th and 17th.

Your last paragraph sounded, to me, very ignorant. The original Constitution (the Seven Articles, that is) never barred any 'free Persons' from voting, including women and 'minorities'. Now, if you were a slave, thats a different story. Keep in mind, though, that not all blacks were slaves back then.

I suggest you read the whole document and not make up parts that don't exist to serve your agenda.

Well I'm glad Zach is on the anti-censorship wagon now.

I wouldn't get too worked up over the bumper sticker. Its an emotional issue; received wisdom and mythology that gore was "cheated". Note the scattergun approach and the logic:
1> the butterfly ballot.
2> the FLA AG
3> hanging chads
4> dimpled chads
5> roads to voter places blocked
6> don't count military ballots
6> Supreme Court unjust ...its politicized... [huh? no kidding]
7> "finish" "recount" in 3 counties.
8> no wait, that didn't work...maybe Gore would've won a recount of the entire State... yeah that's it! That works....thats what we meant to say... etc etc etc.

on and on it goes. ever shifting ground. a fishing expedition to find the right alignment that will ensure the desired outcome.

On a more innocent level the bumper sticker is just like the old sports line "Wait till next year".

just a political football now.

IF the little dog hadn't stopped to shit in the middle of the road it would not have been hit. so what? It did. It was. Sorry, no do-overs in this case.

>Keep in mind, though, that not all blacks were slaves back then.

This is true, I hear a few of them still lived in Africa.

>This is true, I hear a few of them still lived in Africa

Oh come on... you know better than that.

Nice try at covering your gaffe. "Of COURSE I knew about the 17th amendment...yeah." Apparently you have no clear idea why the 17th amendment is there. Perhaps you should read some history books, fella.

As for voting rights -- so you're saying the 15th and 19th Amendments are worthless? That women and minorities were guaranteed the right to vote prior to their adoption? I think you should go to school tomorrow and tell every woman you see that the women's suffrage amendment should be repealed. And even better say everything everything beyond the 15th should be repealed just because you say so. That should be a barrel of laughs.

What's especially funny is if I were to say "let's just repeal the 2nd amendment" with the same gusto as you say "repeal the 17th" you would get your panties in a bunch and accuse "damn libs" of tearing the Constitution to shreds. You may have changed your name, but you're still the same old hypocrite. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that you know nothing about constitutional law (or any law at all -- remember the UCMJ allegations?) -- perhaps you should wait until you manage to educate yourself before making any more extraordinary statements.

>Nice try at covering your gaffe

Uhh... actually not. My copy of the Constitution (which I consult before every post to prevent an embaressing mistake) noted to check the 17th Amendment for changes to that clause, which I did. No 'gaffe'. You really don't give this Constitutional Conservative any credit, do you?

>As for voting rights -- so you're saying the 15th and 19th Amendments are worthless?

No, if you had read my last post in full, I stated that we should keep the First through 15th Amendments, as well as all others except the 16th and 17th.

I try to read other people's post fully everytime to avoid embarresment. You should do the same.

>What's especially funny is if I were to say "let's just repeal the 2nd amendment" with the same gusto as you say "repeal the 17th" you would get your panties in a bunch and accuse "damn libs" of tearing the Constitution to shreds

Wait a minute... apples and oranges!

The First through 10th Amendments, as you know, are part of the Bill of Rights, which were passed by the SAME EXACT people who wrote the Constitution itself. They actually knew what they were doing. The 17th (nor the 16th for that matter) does not fall under that category and that is why I scrutinize it. It directly contradicts the Constitution's superior method of Senator electing. If the amendment provided a superior method of it, then I'd go with the amendment, but such is not the case.

Just trying to lighten the discussion 

Maybe the 17th does go against the Constitution... does that make it a bad idea? Even the best things in life can be improved.

Mmmhmmm -- so by your logic, the Constitutional clause that considers African-Americans to be 3/5 of a person is more valid than the 14th amendment simply because the former was written by the "SAME EXACT people who wrote the Constitution" and the latter was not?

Give us a break. To make yourself any more ridiculous you would have to adopt your Constitutionalist party's platform of reverting to the gold standard. Should we do that, N766AS?

>Maybe the 17th does go against the Constitution... does that make it a bad idea?

Yes, it does make it a bad idea. I'll explain.

As you are quite aware, the original Constitution constructed a system of federalism, a division of power between the centralized Federal government and the several State governments. Once the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913, the Senate became a fully entrenched portion of the Federal government. The several States had lost their voice in Washington. Originally, the Senators went to Washington, D.C. for their term of six years and served, essentially, as the representatives of the State governments. If a particular State legislature (elected by the people of the State) liked how their Senator had performed then they could reappoint him. If it didn't, they could get rid of him and appoint somebody they did like and thus be able to check the power of the Federal government and keep it from messing around in stuff that wasn't properly its affair.


See what I am talking about yet?

"While I admit that minor changes can lawfully be made to the Constitution by Amendment, I will not accept major changes that are in direct conflict with the Founders intent, e.g. the 16th and 17th Amendments. The 16th Amendment changed the method of taxation from indirect to direct. The 17th Amendment removed an important check against federal government growth. The Constitution is a written contract between We The People and government. To remain lawful a contract must maintain its original intent." -Gary McLeod

"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now." South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905).



>so by your logic, the Constitutional clause that considers African-Americans to be 3/5 of a person

No, no, no!!! If you could READ, you'd notice that NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say black people are 3/5 of a person. It says that all non-free persons are 3/5 of a person. As I already pointed out, not all blacks in America (and definately not all in the North) were slaves.

Help me understand, what about states with only one or 2 congressmen? Doesn't that kind of screw your system?

So all non-free's are black, but not all blacks are non-free. Still means that the majority of blacks were not people.

>Help me understand, what about states with only one or 2 congressmen? Doesn't that kind of screw your system?

No... I assume you are talking about US Representatives. Whereas the Senators (two per state) are chosen by the state legisature as a voice for that state, the Representative (number determined by population) is a direct vote; the voice of a district. Its a bit different.

Right, I get it, thanks. I guess I'm still exhausted from last week  

>Still means that the majority of blacks were not people.

Of course... way back when, blacks were not free people. But the Constitution still stands- all non-free people are 3/5 of a person. But we don't have any non-free people anymore (per 14th Amendment). So it all cancels out.

What I was getting at was that the Constitution itself, as claimed by Raddog2, doesn't discriminate on the basis of race, rather on status (free or not free).

But they knew that blacks were the only "non-free" people when it was written. They weren't anticipating for that to change.

>But they knew that blacks were the only "non-free" people when it was written

You seem to be stuck on a mindset that they were out to withhold rights from blacks. This simply wasn't so. They were trying to withhold rights from slaves. Had the slaves been white, Asian, black, blue, green- no difference. They were slaves and, therefore, not free people.

>Had the slaves been white, Asian, black, blue, green- no difference. They were slaves and, therefore, not free people.

Of course we can never say that with any certainty. But the fact is that they DID exclude blacks, but they did so in a way that covered their tracks.

"the Constitution itself, as claimed by Raddog2, doesn't discriminate on the basis of race, rather on status (free or not free)."

So? Discrimination is discrimination. If your logic were to hold, then the 14th and 15th amendments are completely unnecessary. The 13th amendment would solve all our problems. The 19th amendment would be unnecessary too. So why is it that major civil rights legislation is predicated entirely on the 14th and 15th amendments? Why? Can you enlighten us, Mr. Constitutional scholar? In any case, the point still hasn't been addressed -- is discrimination by status legitimate? Should it supercede the 14th amendment just because it was written by the same people who wrote the rest of the constitution? Should it?

As for your contention that the 17th amendment is a violation of states' rights -- I once again suggest that you read the history books. The senate was as crooked as they come. And the assertion that having Senators elected by the people of the state rather than appointed by state legislature is a violation of states' rights is an affront to logic. The ulterior motive, I suspect, is that most statehouses are Republican and repeal of the 17th amendment would shift the Senate rightward. Your excuses are a bunch of hooey.

Oh yes, have you managed to rustle up any legal analysis for your take on Article I section 8 yet? Can you even get Rush Limbaugh to support you on that one?

Of course we can say that with certainty. They certainly weren't withholding Constitutional rights from the free blacks, now were they? You can't get off the thought that they were out to stick it to the blacks.

And I am off to bed... I have a long week ahead of me. Good night- had great discussion. See ya tomorrow...

>Oh yes, have you managed to rustle up any legal analysis for your take on Article I section 8 yet? Can you even get Rush Limbaugh to support you on that one?

Sorry- had to come back for onnne more reply. I don't know if I can get Rush's support, but I sure as hell can get Thomas Jefferson's support. I'll leave you with this quote:

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the 'general welfare' but only those specifically enumerated." --President Thomas Jefferson

"The terms `general Welfare' were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limit than the `General Welfare' and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification or of definition.'' -- Alexander Hamilton

The Electoral College is put in place so the large urban areas of America do not drown out the 'voices' of rural states. Ironically, the 'experts' predicted GW Bush would win popular vote and Gore would win electoral. Remember Bush had a slight 4-7% margin in polls, but Gore was carrying large east coast and west state, as well as all-important midwest states, some of which eventually swung to Bush. I'm curious of all your stances on the Electoral College had it worked the other way. Don't bother, I already know. Gore supporters cry about Florida, but are quick to brag about the 350,000 popular votes he won by as they seem to forget the there were over 2,000,000 'undervotes' nationwide. Look GW Bush is our president and that's that. Move on for God's sake!!!

Cba, 'Get out of Cheney's House' was funny. Lighten up. Listen to your Gore friends in here that say Matt D should learn to take a joke (the bumper-sticker). You too need to lighten up too.

>As for your contention that the 17th amendment is a violation of states' rights -- I once again suggest that you read the history books

Quite the contrary... you should read the history books.

The Founding Fathers carefully crafted the Constitution to not only divide power, but to see that Congressional elections and appointments were made through different methods. This is the key point:

The House was the only branch of power left open to the raw winds of democracy (mob rule).

The Senate was the preserve of the State Legislatures and was set up to preserve the sovereignty of the States.

The 17th amendment destroyed all that and gutted the checks and balances on government. Now the Senators are elected by the people, and, in actuality, are chosen by powerful national parties and their rich and powerful backers who influence and control popular opinion. Our Senate no longer represents the sovereign interests of the States and they really don't even represent the will of the people. They represent the powerful interests who got them elected. And, so, we have corruption of the highest order.

On the day the 17th was ratified by 36 of the 48 States, the U.S. ceased to become a federation of SOVEREIGN States and became merely a unitary state with minimally autonomous administrative provinces.

If you can't admit that the Seventeenth Amendment is an affront to States' rights, you are seriously in denial. There is a large movement (although you probably didn't know that) to repeal the 17th. Take Arizona's repeal action (never happened- not aware of why) for example and it'll explain it all for you...
-------------------------
HCR2024 - 422R - I Ver
Reference Title: seventeenth amendment; repeal
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
MAKING APPLICATION TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO REPEAL THE SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT.



Whereas, the "Great Compromise" of the Constitutional Convention provided for proportional representation in the House of Representatives of the United States and equal representation for the states in the Senate of the United States; and


Whereas, the Founding Fathers determined that equal representation of the states in the Senate of the United States recognized the individual sovereignty of each state; and


Whereas, the Founding Fathers concluded that because the legislatures of the states were themselves "select bodies of men", the choice of United States Senators would generally be made "with peculiar care and judgment" by the legislatures themselves as originally provided for in Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States; and


Whereas, the Tenth Amendment declared a division of authority between the states and the United States and was for the first 140 years invoked by the Supreme Court of the United States as a constitutional limit of congressional power as against the powers of the several states; and


Whereas, the election of the United States Senators by the state legislatures was the political mechanism against congressional encroachment into the sovereignty of the states; and


Whereas, one of the essential aspects of the states' exercise of this political mechanism is the United States Senate's advice and consent for treaties and appointments of executive and judicial officers made by the President of the United States; and


Whereas, the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 changed the election of the United States Senators from the state legislatures to the popular vote of the people of the states, thereby divesting the states of any direct voice in the federal government; and


Whereas, due to the differing modes of representation and election in the House and Senate prior to 1913, each branch provided a balance of legislative power against, and an independent check upon, the other; and


Whereas, prior to 1913, history reveals that in choosing their Senators, the individual state legislatures supported the federal government, thereby providing harmony between the governments of the states and the government of the United States; and


Whereas, the Congress of the United States has, since the ratification of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments, steadily encroached upon the sovereignty of this and the other states united by and under the Constitution of the United States through the "general welfare" provision of the tax clause, the commerce clause and the indiscriminate use of unfunded mandates.

Therefore


Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring:


1. That the Legislature of the State of Arizona finds and declares to be defective the current process of electing United States Senators by the popular vote of the people.


2. That the Congress, in accordance with Article V of the Constitution of the United States, immediately propose and transmit to the several states for ratification an amendment to the Constitution repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.


3. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit certified copies of this Resolution to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and each Member of the Arizona Congressional Delegation.
--------------------

Lets look at an excerpt from the Denver Business Journal from March, 1997.

Do away with 17th Amendment
It's the best solution for campaign funding woes
Junius Peake

With the ratification of the 17th Amendment, the Senate no longer represented the interests of the states, but rather those of their electorates. As a result, voters were less concerned about the qualifications of the members of their state legislatures. Instead, electing federal senators who would respond directly to their views became a major objective of the voters and their special interest groups.

Recent published reports estimate that a minimum of $20,000 per day must be raised by each senator during his or her six-year term of office to wage a competitive campaign for re-election. The recent Feinstein-Huffington campaign in California is a classic example of how expensive the quest for membership in what has been called "the world's most exclusive club" can be...

Senators elected by state legislatures would presumably be more responsive to their state's needs. As a result, U.S. senators would be better insulated from the almost daily pressures of voters' shifting interests, and, freed from constant fund -- raising chores, far better able to focus on the Nation's long -- term objectives. The Senate's constitutional role of being the nation's "saucer" in which the piping hot legislative broth drafted by the House is allowed to cool, will be restored. The sight of superannuated legislators with what appears to be almost lifelong tenure will be no more. It would be the rare legislature, indeed, that would re-elect a senator to term after term, especially with term limits for committee chairs...

This is not an original idea. This proposal was made and implemented by Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and Adams, among others. It was successfully tested in the crucible of American politics for more than a century. It worked, and will work again.
---------------

So hopefully you're getting the point. I'm not just arguing this stuff because I feel like it.

It is the truth. You can deny it all you want, but it'll still be there. The truth will always win.

Check your 'facts'.

Good post N400QX!

Thanks for the well stated facts!

I doubt those God Damn Liberals will pay any attention!

An-225, you can talk all the B.S you want, but Bush is stilll the President!

Gore lost, get over it!

I repeat N766AS, you should read the history books and closely examine why the 17th amendment was ratified.

From the National Archives:

“It is harder for a poor man to enter the United States Senate than for a rich man to enter Heaven.”
--Late-19th-century political aphorism
critiquing the Senate as a "millionaire’s club"

The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, made the Senate an assembly where the states would have equal representation. Each state legislature would elect 2 senators to a 6-year term. Late in the 19th century some state legislatures deadlocked over the election of a senator when different parties controlled different houses, and Senate vacancies could last months or years. In other cases, special interests or political machines gained control over the state legislature. Progressive reformers dismissed individuals elected by such legislatures as puppets and the Senate as a "millionaire’s club" serving powerful private interests.

One Progressive response to these concerns was the "Oregon system" which utilized a state primary election to identify the voters’ choice for senator while pledging all candidates for the state legislature to honor the primary’s result. Over half of the states adopted the "Oregon system," but the 1912 Senate investigation of bribery and corruption in the election of Illinois Senator William Lorimer indicated that only a constitutional amendment mandating the direct election of senators by a state’s citizenry would allay public demands for reform.

From the Senate information site:

Intimidation and bribery marked some of the states' selection of senators. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906. In addition, forty-five deadlocks occurred in twenty states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating senators. In 1899, problems in electing a senator in Delaware were so acute that the state legislature did not send a senator to Washington for four years.

From FindLaw's annotations on the 17th Amendment:

As the franchise became exercisable by greater numbers of people, the belief became widespread that Senators ought to be popularly elected in the same manner as Representatives. Acceptance of this idea was fostered by the mounting accumulation of evidence of the practical disadvantages and malpractices attendant upon legislative selection, such as deadlocks within legislatures resulting in vacancies remaining unfilled for substantial intervals, the influencing of legislative selection by corrupt political organizations and special interest groups through purchase of legislative seats, and the neglect of duties by legislators as a consequence of protracted electoral contests.

"It worked and it will work again" my a$$. You are fooling no one. Attempts to repeal the 17th amendment are always advanced by conservatives because they think they can control the statehouses and buy some more Republican seats in the Senate. States' rights is just a convenient and illogical excuse.

First of all, Tupolev,

I was simply letting off some steam because you liberals successfully had pushed my buttons. Happy?

Second,

2)"Honk if you voted for Gore. It's the big button in the middle of your steering wheel"
3)"Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I with my gun"

Those are pretty darn funny! They're both true too.

Anyways,

I think that some democrats here cant get over it. And yes it feels great rubbing it in their faces that our guy got in. BUT we would prolly be whining if Al Snore got in (even though he had a snowball's chance in hell, and that his voters a too stupid to even be able to vote for him). Period.

N312RC and N400QX

This is another good reason you are both on my respected users list.

You stick it to those God Damn liberals!

Hairyass - whoa, at least you didn't mention God Damn Liberals in the first sentence of your delightfully intelligent post. That must be an improvement. And I think it's either your nasty ass or maybe some other conservative's who deleted my post. That's another example of ignorance...             

N312RC, you are an immature asshole, and any candidate would be embarrassed to have you support him.

Bumper stick that.