China Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Utah Lawmakers Defend Bill to Bypass Voters By Matt Canham The Salt Lake Tribune Utah's Republican senators want to lead the charge nationwide to recapture some of the power state legislatures once held before a constitutional amendment allowed people to vote for their U.S. senators directly. Utah Senate President John Valentine said SB156, which would allow legislators to pick Senate candidates, as long as the political parties agreed, has nothing to do with sitting Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett. It's an effort to bolster the power of state leaders, who are more equipped to crack down on unfunded programs foisted upon the states by the U.S. Congress, he said. "We know more than voters do," Valentine said. "They don't get the chance to hear all that we do." The legislation would also allow lawmakers to "direct" senators by making requests. Utah Democratic Party Executive Director Todd Taylor called the legislation "shameful." "It doesn't respect the Constitution. It doesn't respect the voters and it doesn't respect the history that got us here," he said. A Senate committee is expected to debate the bill, sponsored by Draper Republican Sen. Howard Stephenson, this morning. SB156 has 19 co-sponsors, all of whom are Republican except for West Valley City Democrat Sen. Ed Mayne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 """Utah Democratic Party Executive Director Todd Taylor called the legislation "shameful." "It doesn't respect the Constitution. It doesn't respect the voters and it doesn't respect the history that got us here," he said.""" ummmm I think somebody needs to go back and read the Constitution. Not that I agree with what they are doing, but it IS PRECISELY what the Constitution states should be used a determination of Senators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted January 25, 2006 Author Share Posted January 25, 2006 You mean before it was amended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 kilmer I think the 17th amendment says senators must be elected by popular vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I like it! What do the unwashed masses know anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Yes, before it was amended. So before any politician claims that this disrespects the Constitution, they should know it's history. Also, they arent voting on Senators, just on the nominees for each party. So if the GOP wants to allow it, then it happens. If the Dems choose NOT to do so, they are still free to have a primary or caucus or whatever method they choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I would love to see the 17th amendment repealed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Yes, before it was amended. So before any politician claims that this disrespects the Constitution, they should know it's history.Also, they arent voting on Senators, just on the nominees for each party. So if the GOP wants to allow it, then it happens. If the Dems choose NOT to do so, they are still free to have a primary or caucus or whatever method they choose. Oh, OK. Big distinction. Now we're talking about something that the Constitution's completely silent about: Party selection. Sorry, folks, but the states have the right to set whatever rules they want for who gets on the ballot in their states. (Although, I'd like to see some Constitutional challenges about those states I've lived in that don't allow write-in candidates. And I think somebody (Nader?) did get a ruleing against those states that have one deadline to get your name on the ballot if you're a D or R, but another deadline if you're anybody else.) Now, I'd bet the courts would find some nebulous thing to object on if, say, they were to say that the Democratic Party was required to run the candidate the Legislature chose. (I'd object on the grounds that the Legislature may have the right to nominate their own candidates, but they don't have the right to put the "Approved by the Democratic Party" label on a person that the Party didn't pick.) Y'know, the more I write on this subject, the more I move from "they can do what they want" to "I've got a problem with this". But I still wouldn't go invoking some claims of Constitutional Priveledge demanding a Right to backroom caucuses. And I'd say that, since it's voluntary, go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UtahSkinsFanatic Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 There is more to this than this article states. Howard Stephenson R-Draper, the state senator who is proposing this bill is just using the 17th Admendment for cover. The real issue is that the Legislature does not want anyone to go to Washington and vote against the wishes and policies of the far right who control the Legislature. This bill would create a puppet-master type relationship, with the Legislature controlling on how the Senators would vote on all legislation. Unfortunately it will pass both houses easy. The question will be if Governor Huntsman will sign it. I think this is just a waste because my tax dollars, that is deperately needed in other areas, will be spent fighting this in court. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Chaos47 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Ignorant comment about Utah and the Mormon religion in 5...4...3... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I would love to see the 17th amendment repealed Not a fan of allowing the people to choose their representatives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Not a fan of allowing the people to choose their representatives? Im a bigger fan of the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Which is to deny voting rights to blacks,women, the poor and uneducated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Not a fan of allowing the people to choose their representatives? The uneducated certainly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 The uneducated certainly. And thus the downfall of the GOP. :laugh: j/k with ya' So, what are you proposing - an IQ test for all who want to vote? A diploma? What's your litmus test? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I would SOOOOOO be in favor of an IQ test. Can we get one for the candidates too? Plato's republic here we come! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I would SOOOOOO be in favor of an IQ test. Can we get one for the candidates too? Plato's republic here we come! can we do it for drivers licenses too please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Im a bigger fan of the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers. Which is to deny voting rights to blacks,women, the poor and uneducated? Don't forget not allowing D.C. to vote for the President and allowing 18-year-olds to vote ... and are the Founding Fathers the people that signed the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution? ...they also left out Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, and the Right to Bear Arms... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Which is to deny voting rights to blacks,women, the poor and uneducated? last time I checked I had brown skin................. eh, voting is overrated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 As I was saying yesterday... and people say liberals are elitists! Sheesh!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.