Not exactly. The process varied from state to state, but yes -- a bit more than half the states didn't select senators via legislative or gubernatorial appointment. But that was fairly close to the ratification of the 17th anyway -- as you go back even a few years (say 1906), that wasn't the case. The momentum was already building.
"The reason that the amendment got passed is that the process of picking senators was completely corrupt."
But you also said the following BEFORE that statement:
"You need to spend more time understanding why this amendment got passed"
Apparently you don't fully understand why it got passed. One of the issues was corruption, but it wasn't the only one.
Also, the "solution" had an impact which damaged and continues to damage the republic. I would argue that the solution created a much larger problem than it fixed, should be undone and another "solution" pursued.
"And you do realize that you are actually arguing for less democracy and more corruption by begging to return to those "good old days", right?"
Yes, I do realize I'm arguing for less democracy. No, I'm not arguing for more corruption. That's just ridicules.
First some background -- I'm an amateur historian with a strong focus the early federal period of the United States. I have assisted/directed more than a few scholars to reference letters/documents supporting their respective thesis'. Anyone who's read Madison's notes and letters, letters of Hamilton, Jay (beyond just the Federalist Papers), and Morris for example can clearly see that there was nearly as much fear of too much democracy as there was of monarchy. Madison took copious notes during the convention (which is amazing considering how often he also spoke during the convention). He wasn't even the official secretary -- that was Jackson. His citations are well documented.
With regards to the legislature, they kept wanting to "cool" the "passions" of the people and their influence on the House while making sure the people had a voice. It is impossible to balance democracy and reason when both the House and the Senate can be swayed by popular passions.
I can continue the history lesson but I would suggest seeing if you can find an old book by St. John -- "The Constitutional Journal" or "A Constitutional Journal" (it's been a few decades since I read it) but it provides an excellent overview of the CC and presents it in an entertaining format (as if it were being reported daily by an embedded journalist).
Again, the "solution" to whatever the perceived problems were pre 17 had a profound and unintended negative impact on our republic. I find it astonishing that just because you heard people you don't like saying it that you reflexively dismiss it. Ok -- maybe not astonished. But I certainly find it amusing that you accuse me of parroting 'talking heads'.
"No of course you don't because you just repeat what the right wing talking heads told you to think."
That is a silly comment. I've held this belief for well over 30 years. I acquired it myself reading the letters of our framers. Not "snips" of text -- but their actual full letters (some original, most copies).
The concessions were made to DEMOCRATS to risk their seats voting for it.
A single payer system never would have made it to the floor because a large number of DEMOCRATS wouldn't have voted for it.
Again, the only bipartisan aspect of the ACA was it's opposition.
"Its doing neither."
Yes it is. With regards to the judiciary, they are deliberately affirming judicial nominations who believe in the idea of re-interpreting the constitution -- and in the extreme, basically writing law themselves.
" so now the Judiciary branch made the decision that America lives in the real world"
Sorry, but when they can bend over backwards and re-define eminent domain to allow the government to take private property from a citizen and force a sale to another private citizen or entity for the sole purpose of the enrichment of the government coffers we've jumped the shark.
Repeal the 17th amendment. At least you would have one house that isn't campaigning all the type.
IMO, the 17th broke a fundamental safeguard of our republic.
Ayup. I mis-typed. That should read "Congress is ceding power to both the Executive and Judiciary".
Are you that misinformed or just making things up?
The republicans had no say whatsoever in the ACA. It passed with zero support. The only bi-partisan aspect of the ACA was it's opposition. This is completely owned by an overwhelming democrat majority in congress at the time.
Implied powers. Their authority is spelled out in the constitution -- how it was to be exercised was not. But that's true for all three branches of our government.
"Well, since we don't have a functional legislative body, we're fucked."
Congress choosing not to act is in fact a valid choice. Don't like it, vote them out.
The second amendment doesn't include the definition of state. ACA did. Hell, the writers of the ACA claimed they deliberately didn't include federal exchanges because they wanted to try to force the states to do it.
"The other option is to re-interpret lots of other sections, and change the law to be at odds with how the people writing it meant for it to be interpreted"
I think I read that book in high-school. Wasn't it called 1984?
"the courts should be rewriting "
And thus harkens the downfall of the Republic. Hyperbole? Perhaps... and I hope. I have my fears.
The job of the federal courts is not to re-write law but to affirm or strike down laws which are or are not Constitutional.
It's the job of Congress to write (and maybe re-write when necessary) laws. If a law fell short the first time through it should *NOT* be the job of the courts to fill in the gaps.
Unfortunately, Congress is ceding power to both the Executive and Legislative that can only weaken our rights and liberty. They are becoming less and less relevant.
"I've had the very same problem for years now. I get exclusively results that other people got, who searched something vaguely similar."
I used to love alta vista and web-crawler waybackwhen(tm). They provided MATCHES, not what they THOUGHT I wanted to see.
That said -- the internet is several orders of magnitude larger than it was in the mid 90's. I'm unsure if similar search engines would be useful if they didn't try to figure out what you WANT to see rather than what you ASK to see.
Oh, will you two just shut up and kiss already?
"Fines like this are a calculated cost of doing business, to be sure, but they are also an important part of punishment theatre. Companies of this size negotiate fine amounts and punishments as forms of appeasement when caught with their hands in the cookie jar. "
We need to stop blaming the evil corporations. Let there be shame. When stuff like this becomes public people should jump carriers. Let THAT get factored in to the cost of doing business.
If we're too lazy to jump to another carrier then it's our own damn fault we need to deal with this.