It Is Not Senility —— It Is The XVII Amendment

F

Flanders

Verified User
The Washington Post reports that the current U.S. Senate is the oldest in American history. Dianne Feinstein turns 88 this month. Charles Grassley turns 88 in September.

Richard Shelby is 87. James Inhofe is 86. Patrick Leahy is 81. Twenty-three senators are in their 70s. The average age of senators at the beginning of this year was 64.3 years.

It may be that being 88 now is like being, say, 78 a few decades ago. So despite being the oldest, this might not be the most age-impaired Senate in our history. Robert Caro’s book about the Lyndon Johnson-dominated Senate makes it clear that more than a few solons of the 1950s were rendered largely useless by age and/or drink.

Dianne Feinstein and some of the other Senators cited in the Post’s article insist they are still as sharp as a tack. But there must be a few who are losing it. A local pharmacist said in 2017 that he routinely sends Alzheimer’s medication to Capitol Hill.

In reality, it’s likely that most, if not all, of the Senators in their 80s and late 70s aren’t nearly as sharp as they used to be. To me, the interesting question is whether they realize this.

Most people I know in their 70s are constantly on the lookout for signs of mental impairment. I’m 72 and freak out if I can’t remember the fifth starter for the Arizona Diamondbacks.

Senators seem to be different. Maybe it’s because they are surrounded by staffers whose livelihoods, and in some cases mini-empires, depend on the boss believing he’s still fully fit to serve as senator. That’s one theory, anyway.

It’s not optimal to have a Senate with age-impaired members. Such a Senate denies fully effective representation to certain states and may function less fluidly than a Senate with 100 competent members.

The main effect, though, may be to give more power to leadership. That was the case with Lyndon Johnson’s Senate, although Johnson (who was then in his 40s) would have dominated the Senate in any event.

Whether extra power in leadership is desirable depends on the identity of the leaders. Whether a fluidly functioning Senate is desirable depends on the leadership’s agenda.

What should be done about Senate senility? The obvious answer is a constitutional amendment imposing term limits. But term limits are anti-democratic. They deprive voters of the ability to elect Senators of their choice. And I’d hate to see Tom Cotton limited by law to two terms, or even three, if it came to that.

In the end, it’s up to the opponents of very old Senators to make the case that they are age-impaired, and up to voters to evaluate the evidence and decide whether such Senators should remain in office. If we end up with only 80 or so fit Senators, the Republic should still be okay.

Or so it seems to me.
​

Senate senility
Paul Mirengoff in Senate
Posted on June 4, 2021 Paul Mirengoff in Senate

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/06/senate-senility.php
​

I put together a bunch of things I have been saying for decades. Please read and consider repeal if you have the time:

Repealing the XVII Amendment will get rid of long-serving senators. There is zero chance U.S. Senators will cut their own economic throats.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...Beating-On-The-Clintons&p=2756537#post2756537


Frankly, I never understood why the public allows long-serving senators to get away with the things the public fears in imperial presidents. As I said in 2009 “Obama’s Administration was a Senate Administration.” It was the media that guaranteed a sitting senator would become president in 2008. It mattered not which party he or she came from.

​
XXXXX​

Media moguls are guilty of the evils done by long-serving senators. Media paymasters would fight to the death before they would allow the XVII Amendment to be repealed. It is cheaper to elect and control a majority of senators than it is buy the HOUSE every two years. In short: Senators are bought for six years. Representatives sign two year contracts with media mouths.​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...President-Out-Of-Office&p=2766134#post2766134


Lawyers outnumber non-lawyers in the Senate. That makes me question how much the XVII Amendment contributed to infanticide. The late Ted Kennedy (1932 - 2009) was a long-serving senator who devoted his career to killing babies.
​

XXXXX
​

Parenthetically, long-serving representatives are just as bad as long-serving senators. Nancy Pelosi has been in the House since 1987. She is one of the foulest woman that ever lived. People in her district elect her, and the media treats her like she is a decent human whose opinion is worthy of respect.​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-On-The-Northern-Border&p=2786426#post2786426


H.L. Mencken’s observation became a universal truth when a bunch of brain dead halfwits did inestimable harm through their long-serving senators:
​


​
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. H. L. Mencken
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...t-Republican-Worm-Turns&p=2800700#post2800700


Over the years I offered dozens of valid reasons for repealing the XVII Amendment. Long-serving Ted Kennedy (1932 - 2009) spent 47 years in US Senate (1962 - 2009). In all of the years Kennedy ‘served’ he never did one good thing for the American people or for the country. Now comes Mitt Romney who had to have his nose surgically removed from the Lion of Senate’s ass after the drunk died.
​

images

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...g/romney/images/romney_health_signing_400.jpg

​
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...Mitt-Romney%92s-Surgery&p=3075755#post3075755


The XVII Amendment is responsible for long-serving senators. Does anyone doubt that Joe Biden’s 36 years as a U.S. Senator was not a destructive unintended consequence?
​


https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?123120-Political-Triple-Dead-Heat&p=3168720#post3168720


. . . repealing the XVII Amendment will end the reign of terror brought on by long-serving senators.
​

XXXXX
​

Clause 1 was a helluva lot better than long-serving senators:



​
Clause 1: Composition; Election of Senators

​


The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
​

Senators were crooks and scoundrels before the XVII Amendment (1913) to be sure, but at least they were not traitors. It was long-serving senators —— DEMOCRATS & REPUBLICANS —— that turned the U.S. Senate into a nest of traitors.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...rs-Needs-The-Black-Vote&p=3213331#post3213331


. . . the XVII Amendment did more for long-serving hags than it did for their male counterparts. That says a lot when you look at the worst of them —— Joe Biden (36 years), John Kerry (23 years), Patrick Leahy (45 years) and the late Ted Kennedy (46 years).
​

XXXXX​

Long-serving Republicans were not much better than Democrats since they willing had a hand in everything Democrats did to this country.​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?131032-The-Hag-Era&p=3383636#post3383636


Calling FORMER LONG-SERVING Senator Joe Biden to testify is good for a few laughs. That is as far as it goes. Nobody really expects a nest of traitors to punish one of their own.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ghting-An-Uphill-Battle&p=3437995#post3437995


On top of senators stealing tax dollars legally they enrich family members à la Joe Biden. Repealing the XVI Amendment is a tough go at this time, while repealing the XVII Amendment will at least put the breaks on the blood kin of long-serving parasites.

​
XXXXX
​

Most especially long-serving Democrat senators cannot live with the thought of losing control over earned incomes that built this country before 1917. I am talking abut the very wealthy, and average Americans, protecting their incomes from being confiscated by touchy-feely parasites.

NOTE: The longer Democrats serve in the U.S. Senate the richer they become. The years of senators getting an envelope stuffed with money (BRIBES) under the table disappeared when Democrat parasites got the XVI and XVII Amendments.

In short: Becoming very wealthy on tax dollars is contagious among Senate Democrats. Check the wealth top Senate Democrats accumulated if you doubt me. They all arrive in Washington wearing dirty underwear and leave with steamer trunks full of tax dollars.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?133696-One-More-Obama-Story&p=3456019#post3456019


Considering the Democrats in Congress coupled with long-serving senators, I doubt if nine conservative justices could balance the scale.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?135036-Sad-Sack-Sonia&p=3498032#post3498032


Biden’s bunghole buddy, Ted Kennedy (1932 - 2009), was more than enough reason to repeal the XVII Amendment —— stop long-serving senators from implementing their personal policies more effectively than presidents.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...s-Is-Too-Kind-For-Biden&p=3533626#post3533626


Incidentally, the XVII Amendment is an important reason the country is being destroyed from within. Not only did that UNRATIFIED amendment curse the country with long-serving senators, it gave the worse scum the vote. Until recently, Democrat scum at least had to get off their asses and cast their ballots in person on ELECTION DAY.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...od-News-For-The-Country&p=3689443#post3689443


Every long-serving senator gets more of his personal agenda legislated than did every president after 1945. Ted Kennedy (1932 - 2009) sat in U.S. Senate for 47 years (1962 - 2009). The departed drunk will always be the gold standard for the XVII Amendment.
​

XXXXX​

4. Long-serving senators would lose all influence over deciding who sits on the High Court.​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?149352-Deifying-Maggots&p=3913388#post3913388


. . . Biden’s long-serving tenure in the Senate —— 36 years —— emphasizes the need to repeal the XVII Amendment. Ask yourself this question if you trust long-serving traitors: Do you really believe that a filthy piece of garbage like a former senator, a former vice president, and a wannabe president would be in bed with Communist China today without the XVII AMENDMENT?
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...iracy-Is-Gaining-On-You&p=3949936#post3949936
 
Flanders said:
. . . Biden’s long-serving tenure in the Senate —— 36 years —— emphasizes the need to repeal the XVII Amendment. Ask yourself this question if you trust long-serving traitors: Do you really believe that a filthy piece of garbage like a former senator, a former vice president, and a wannabe president would be in bed with Communist China today without the XVII AMENDMENT?
​
Click to expand...

If you believe this you will believe everything swamp creatures tell you:


Tensions between the U.S. and China are likely only to worsen under the Biden administration, according to Raymond James Managing Director Ed Mills.

"This kind of relationship is going down a path of great confrontation," said Mills, who is also the financial services firm's Washington policy analyst. "I think we are going to see an increase in the conversation about the decoupling and more conversations about 'Are we going into another Cold War between these two economies?'"
​


U.S.-China relationship 'going down a path of great confrontation,' analyst says
Aarthi Swaminathan
June 14, 2021, 3:14 PM

https://www.aol.com/finance/u-china-relationship-going-down-191424867.html
​

Bottom line: Trying to make China Joe Biden look like a loyal American is the new game in town.
 
The UK senate is called the house of lords and are selected for aligning themselves with the corporate agenda.
Name one US senator who would dare to vote against their corporate overlords.
 
goat said:
Name one US senator who would dare to vote against their corporate overlords.
Click to expand...

To goat: I cannot name one senator that would vote against their overlords —— THE UNITED NATIONS. The same is true of every high-ranking government official in every country.

Note that even Senator Connally voted to ratify the U.N. Charter:


Before the U.S. Senate became a full-blown nest of traitors Senator Tom Connally (D-Texas) (voted to ratify) insisted on putting these six words in the U.N. Charter:

"AS DETERMINED BY THE UNITED STATES."

Those six words are known as the "Connally Reservation" and are the only words that prevents the U.N.’s World Court from interfering in America’s internal affairs on the pretext that tariffs, immigration laws, school curriculums, etc., affect U.S. relations with other countries and are therefore "foreign" and not "domestic."

U.S. sovereignty would be long gone were it not for the Connally Reservation. The battle over erasing those six words from the U.N. Charter has been ongoing since 1946 —— most of it below the public’s radar screen.

Connally’s Amendment protected Americans from more than an average person like me could ever cover; not the least of those protections was shielding our Second Amendment from U.N. gun control advocates. Should Americans research it I think they will be disappointed in many of the people who supported repealing the Connally Reservation.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...From-The-United-Nations&p=4340869#post4340869
 
Flanders said:
The Washington Post reports that the current U.S. Senate is the oldest in American history. Dianne Feinstein turns 88 this month. Charles Grassley turns 88 in September.

Richard Shelby is 87. James Inhofe is 86. Patrick Leahy is 81. Twenty-three senators are in their 70s. The average age of senators at the beginning of this year was 64.3 years.

It may be that being 88 now is like being, say, 78 a few decades ago. So despite being the oldest, this might not be the most age-impaired Senate in our history. Robert Caro’s book about the Lyndon Johnson-dominated Senate makes it clear that more than a few solons of the 1950s were rendered largely useless by age and/or drink.

Dianne Feinstein and some of the other Senators cited in the Post’s article insist they are still as sharp as a tack. But there must be a few who are losing it. A local pharmacist said in 2017 that he routinely sends Alzheimer’s medication to Capitol Hill.

In reality, it’s likely that most, if not all, of the Senators in their 80s and late 70s aren’t nearly as sharp as they used to be. To me, the interesting question is whether they realize this.

Most people I know in their 70s are constantly on the lookout for signs of mental impairment. I’m 72 and freak out if I can’t remember the fifth starter for the Arizona Diamondbacks.

Senators seem to be different. Maybe it’s because they are surrounded by staffers whose livelihoods, and in some cases mini-empires, depend on the boss believing he’s still fully fit to serve as senator. That’s one theory, anyway.

It’s not optimal to have a Senate with age-impaired members. Such a Senate denies fully effective representation to certain states and may function less fluidly than a Senate with 100 competent members.

The main effect, though, may be to give more power to leadership. That was the case with Lyndon Johnson’s Senate, although Johnson (who was then in his 40s) would have dominated the Senate in any event.

Whether extra power in leadership is desirable depends on the identity of the leaders. Whether a fluidly functioning Senate is desirable depends on the leadership’s agenda.

What should be done about Senate senility? The obvious answer is a constitutional amendment imposing term limits. But term limits are anti-democratic. They deprive voters of the ability to elect Senators of their choice. And I’d hate to see Tom Cotton limited by law to two terms, or even three, if it came to that.

In the end, it’s up to the opponents of very old Senators to make the case that they are age-impaired, and up to voters to evaluate the evidence and decide whether such Senators should remain in office. If we end up with only 80 or so fit Senators, the Republic should still be okay.

Or so it seems to me.
​

Senate senility
Paul Mirengoff in Senate
Posted on June 4, 2021 Paul Mirengoff in Senate

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/06/senate-senility.php
​

I put together a bunch of things I have been saying for decades. Please read and consider repeal if you have the time:

Repealing the XVII Amendment will get rid of long-serving senators. There is zero chance U.S. Senators will cut their own economic throats.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...Beating-On-The-Clintons&p=2756537#post2756537


Frankly, I never understood why the public allows long-serving senators to get away with the things the public fears in imperial presidents. As I said in 2009 “Obama’s Administration was a Senate Administration.” It was the media that guaranteed a sitting senator would become president in 2008. It mattered not which party he or she came from.

​
XXXXX​

Media moguls are guilty of the evils done by long-serving senators. Media paymasters would fight to the death before they would allow the XVII Amendment to be repealed. It is cheaper to elect and control a majority of senators than it is buy the HOUSE every two years. In short: Senators are bought for six years. Representatives sign two year contracts with media mouths.​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...President-Out-Of-Office&p=2766134#post2766134


Lawyers outnumber non-lawyers in the Senate. That makes me question how much the XVII Amendment contributed to infanticide. The late Ted Kennedy (1932 - 2009) was a long-serving senator who devoted his career to killing babies.
​

XXXXX
​

Parenthetically, long-serving representatives are just as bad as long-serving senators. Nancy Pelosi has been in the House since 1987. She is one of the foulest woman that ever lived. People in her district elect her, and the media treats her like she is a decent human whose opinion is worthy of respect.​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-On-The-Northern-Border&p=2786426#post2786426


H.L. Mencken’s observation became a universal truth when a bunch of brain dead halfwits did inestimable harm through their long-serving senators:
​


​
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. H. L. Mencken
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...t-Republican-Worm-Turns&p=2800700#post2800700


Over the years I offered dozens of valid reasons for repealing the XVII Amendment. Long-serving Ted Kennedy (1932 - 2009) spent 47 years in US Senate (1962 - 2009). In all of the years Kennedy ‘served’ he never did one good thing for the American people or for the country. Now comes Mitt Romney who had to have his nose surgically removed from the Lion of Senate’s ass after the drunk died.
​
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...Mitt-Romney%92s-Surgery&p=3075755#post3075755


The XVII Amendment is responsible for long-serving senators. Does anyone doubt that Joe Biden’s 36 years as a U.S. Senator was not a destructive unintended consequence?
​


https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?123120-Political-Triple-Dead-Heat&p=3168720#post3168720


. . . repealing the XVII Amendment will end the reign of terror brought on by long-serving senators.
​

XXXXX
​

Clause 1 was a helluva lot better than long-serving senators:



​
Clause 1: Composition; Election of Senators

​


The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
​

Senators were crooks and scoundrels before the XVII Amendment (1913) to be sure, but at least they were not traitors. It was long-serving senators —— DEMOCRATS & REPUBLICANS —— that turned the U.S. Senate into a nest of traitors.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...rs-Needs-The-Black-Vote&p=3213331#post3213331


. . . the XVII Amendment did more for long-serving hags than it did for their male counterparts. That says a lot when you look at the worst of them —— Joe Biden (36 years), John Kerry (23 years), Patrick Leahy (45 years) and the late Ted Kennedy (46 years).
​

XXXXX​

Long-serving Republicans were not much better than Democrats since they willing had a hand in everything Democrats did to this country.​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?131032-The-Hag-Era&p=3383636#post3383636


Calling FORMER LONG-SERVING Senator Joe Biden to testify is good for a few laughs. That is as far as it goes. Nobody really expects a nest of traitors to punish one of their own.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ghting-An-Uphill-Battle&p=3437995#post3437995


On top of senators stealing tax dollars legally they enrich family members à la Joe Biden. Repealing the XVI Amendment is a tough go at this time, while repealing the XVII Amendment will at least put the breaks on the blood kin of long-serving parasites.

​
XXXXX
​

Most especially long-serving Democrat senators cannot live with the thought of losing control over earned incomes that built this country before 1917. I am talking abut the very wealthy, and average Americans, protecting their incomes from being confiscated by touchy-feely parasites.

NOTE: The longer Democrats serve in the U.S. Senate the richer they become. The years of senators getting an envelope stuffed with money (BRIBES) under the table disappeared when Democrat parasites got the XVI and XVII Amendments.

In short: Becoming very wealthy on tax dollars is contagious among Senate Democrats. Check the wealth top Senate Democrats accumulated if you doubt me. They all arrive in Washington wearing dirty underwear and leave with steamer trunks full of tax dollars.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?133696-One-More-Obama-Story&p=3456019#post3456019


Considering the Democrats in Congress coupled with long-serving senators, I doubt if nine conservative justices could balance the scale.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?135036-Sad-Sack-Sonia&p=3498032#post3498032


Biden’s bunghole buddy, Ted Kennedy (1932 - 2009), was more than enough reason to repeal the XVII Amendment —— stop long-serving senators from implementing their personal policies more effectively than presidents.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...s-Is-Too-Kind-For-Biden&p=3533626#post3533626


Incidentally, the XVII Amendment is an important reason the country is being destroyed from within. Not only did that UNRATIFIED amendment curse the country with long-serving senators, it gave the worse scum the vote. Until recently, Democrat scum at least had to get off their asses and cast their ballots in person on ELECTION DAY.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...od-News-For-The-Country&p=3689443#post3689443


Every long-serving senator gets more of his personal agenda legislated than did every president after 1945. Ted Kennedy (1932 - 2009) sat in U.S. Senate for 47 years (1962 - 2009). The departed drunk will always be the gold standard for the XVII Amendment.
​

XXXXX​

4. Long-serving senators would lose all influence over deciding who sits on the High Court.​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?149352-Deifying-Maggots&p=3913388#post3913388


. . . Biden’s long-serving tenure in the Senate —— 36 years —— emphasizes the need to repeal the XVII Amendment. Ask yourself this question if you trust long-serving traitors: Do you really believe that a filthy piece of garbage like a former senator, a former vice president, and a wannabe president would be in bed with Communist China today without the XVII AMENDMENT?
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...iracy-Is-Gaining-On-You&p=3949936#post3949936
Click to expand...


tq7sVxdJns5XeRx0_-wiDeMwpqcbFrmMxArcRZLjn9rZroUO8bRuSMO9uh07pTl4pagCzTucA3QJAo8YtrCVpTPSBOS1rKqCtWSnSBQ
 
Flanders said:
To goat: I cannot name one senator that would vote against their overlords —— THE UNITED NATIONS. The same is true of every high-ranking government official in every country.

Note that even Senator Connally voted to ratify the U.N. Charter:


Before the U.S. Senate became a full-blown nest of traitors Senator Tom Connally (D-Texas) (voted to ratify) insisted on putting these six words in the U.N. Charter:

"AS DETERMINED BY THE UNITED STATES."

Those six words are known as the "Connally Reservation" and are the only words that prevents the U.N.’s World Court from interfering in America’s internal affairs on the pretext that tariffs, immigration laws, school curriculums, etc., affect U.S. relations with other countries and are therefore "foreign" and not "domestic."

U.S. sovereignty would be long gone were it not for the Connally Reservation. The battle over erasing those six words from the U.N. Charter has been ongoing since 1946 —— most of it below the public’s radar screen.

Connally’s Amendment protected Americans from more than an average person like me could ever cover; not the least of those protections was shielding our Second Amendment from U.N. gun control advocates. Should Americans research it I think they will be disappointed in many of the people who supported repealing the Connally Reservation.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...From-The-United-Nations&p=4340869#post4340869
Click to expand...
"The centre cannot hold" The world as we know it has to change or face anarchy.
 
goat said:
"The centre cannot hold"
Click to expand...

To goat: I am not sure what you mean by “. . . centre . . .”.

Chiefly British
variant of center


Totalitarian government is one extreme. Anarchy is the other extreme. Limited government is the permanent center; it never moves.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?165080-Moderate-left&p=4337879#post4337879

goat said:
The world as we know it has to change or face anarchy.
Click to expand...

To goat: I cannot see anarchy in the cards.

Withdrawing from International forums and the United Nations MIGHT trigger a short-lived violent conflict between government forces and Americans. I say short-lived because two hundred million Freedom-loving Americans are well-armed.
 
Elections are the only means necessary for limiting terms.

I don't believe that any public office, including POTUS, should be term limited.

I can't remember how many times that I voted for Edward M. Kennedy in senate races,
but if he were alive, I'd still most likely be doing it. [Although I'm not sure that I could vote against Liz Warren.]

Why? Because I liked his votes on the senate floor.
They were public record. I knew exactly what I was voting for,
and I didn't need somebody to tell me when to stop doing it.

Personalities don't count for shit.
It's the work, and as long as they can do it, they should be allowed to run.
 
Flanders said:
Withdrawing from International forums and the United Nations MIGHT trigger a short-lived violent conflict between government forces and Americans. I say short-lived because two hundred million Freedom-loving Americans are well-armed.
Click to expand...

If you start the clock in the year 1900 it took Socialists/Communists 121 years and a whole lot of oppressive laws and Executive Orders to enslave the American people incrementally. It only took 35 years to undue big government’s advantage:


Don Surber posted an amazing pair of maps yesterday, showing the way that federalism is working to enable citizens to defend themselves with firearms. While the federal Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, states regulate firearms licensing, and in the past 35 years, a landslide of states has recognized the right to carry a firearm. Check out the night and day contrast between 1986 and 2021:


​


June 19, 2021
Two maps that will infuriate progs and demonstrate the foundational wisdom of federalism
By Thomas Lifson

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...te_the_foundational_wisdom_of_federalism.html
​

Finally, carrying-and-using is the cornerstone of the Second Amendment:


The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson

​

XXXXX
​

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

​

XXXXX
​

Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can. Samuel Adams

​

XXXXX
​

Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense. John Adams
​

XXXXX
​

It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government. Thomas Paine
​
 
The only dumber amendment we ever ratified was the 18th, and we had the sense to repeal it. Hopefully we will correct the 17th in similar fashion.
 
Flanders said:
The Washington Post reports that the current U.S. Senate is the oldest in American history. Dianne Feinstein turns 88 this month. Charles Grassley turns 88 in September.

Richard Shelby is 87. James Inhofe is 86. Patrick Leahy is 81. Twenty-three senators are in their 70s. The average age of senators at the beginning of this year was 64.3 years.

It may be that being 88 now is like being, say, 78 a few decades ago. So despite being the oldest, this might not be the most age-impaired Senate in our history. Robert Caro’s book about the Lyndon Johnson-dominated Senate makes it clear that more than a few solons of the 1950s were rendered largely useless by age and/or drink.

Dianne Feinstein and some of the other Senators cited in the Post’s article insist they are still as sharp as a tack. But there must be a few who are losing it. A local pharmacist said in 2017 that he routinely sends Alzheimer’s medication to Capitol Hill.

In reality, it’s likely that most, if not all, of the Senators in their 80s and late 70s aren’t nearly as sharp as they used to be. To me, the interesting question is whether they realize this.

Most people I know in their 70s are constantly on the lookout for signs of mental impairment. I’m 72 and freak out if I can’t remember the fifth starter for the Arizona Diamondbacks.

Senators seem to be different. Maybe it’s because they are surrounded by staffers whose livelihoods, and in some cases mini-empires, depend on the boss believing he’s still fully fit to serve as senator. That’s one theory, anyway.

It’s not optimal to have a Senate with age-impaired members. Such a Senate denies fully effective representation to certain states and may function less fluidly than a Senate with 100 competent members.

The main effect, though, may be to give more power to leadership. That was the case with Lyndon Johnson’s Senate, although Johnson (who was then in his 40s) would have dominated the Senate in any event.

Whether extra power in leadership is desirable depends on the identity of the leaders. Whether a fluidly functioning Senate is desirable depends on the leadership’s agenda.

What should be done about Senate senility? The obvious answer is a constitutional amendment imposing term limits. But term limits are anti-democratic. They deprive voters of the ability to elect Senators of their choice. And I’d hate to see Tom Cotton limited by law to two terms, or even three, if it came to that.

In the end, it’s up to the opponents of very old Senators to make the case that they are age-impaired, and up to voters to evaluate the evidence and decide whether such Senators should remain in office. If we end up with only 80 or so fit Senators, the Republic should still be okay.

Or so it seems to me.
​

Senate senility
Paul Mirengoff in Senate
Posted on June 4, 2021 Paul Mirengoff in Senate

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/06/senate-senility.php
​

I put together a bunch of things I have been saying for decades. Please read and consider repeal if you have the time:

Repealing the XVII Amendment will get rid of long-serving senators. There is zero chance U.S. Senators will cut their own economic throats.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...Beating-On-The-Clintons&p=2756537#post2756537


Frankly, I never understood why the public allows long-serving senators to get away with the things the public fears in imperial presidents. As I said in 2009 “Obama’s Administration was a Senate Administration.” It was the media that guaranteed a sitting senator would become president in 2008. It mattered not which party he or she came from.

​
XXXXX​

Media moguls are guilty of the evils done by long-serving senators. Media paymasters would fight to the death before they would allow the XVII Amendment to be repealed. It is cheaper to elect and control a majority of senators than it is buy the HOUSE every two years. In short: Senators are bought for six years. Representatives sign two year contracts with media mouths.​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...President-Out-Of-Office&p=2766134#post2766134


Lawyers outnumber non-lawyers in the Senate. That makes me question how much the XVII Amendment contributed to infanticide. The late Ted Kennedy (1932 - 2009) was a long-serving senator who devoted his career to killing babies.
​

XXXXX
​

Parenthetically, long-serving representatives are just as bad as long-serving senators. Nancy Pelosi has been in the House since 1987. She is one of the foulest woman that ever lived. People in her district elect her, and the media treats her like she is a decent human whose opinion is worthy of respect.​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-On-The-Northern-Border&p=2786426#post2786426


H.L. Mencken’s observation became a universal truth when a bunch of brain dead halfwits did inestimable harm through their long-serving senators:
​


​
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. H. L. Mencken
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...t-Republican-Worm-Turns&p=2800700#post2800700


Over the years I offered dozens of valid reasons for repealing the XVII Amendment. Long-serving Ted Kennedy (1932 - 2009) spent 47 years in US Senate (1962 - 2009). In all of the years Kennedy ‘served’ he never did one good thing for the American people or for the country. Now comes Mitt Romney who had to have his nose surgically removed from the Lion of Senate’s ass after the drunk died.
​
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...Mitt-Romney%92s-Surgery&p=3075755#post3075755


The XVII Amendment is responsible for long-serving senators. Does anyone doubt that Joe Biden’s 36 years as a U.S. Senator was not a destructive unintended consequence?
​


https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?123120-Political-Triple-Dead-Heat&p=3168720#post3168720


. . . repealing the XVII Amendment will end the reign of terror brought on by long-serving senators.
​

XXXXX
​

Clause 1 was a helluva lot better than long-serving senators:



​
Clause 1: Composition; Election of Senators

​


The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
​

Senators were crooks and scoundrels before the XVII Amendment (1913) to be sure, but at least they were not traitors. It was long-serving senators —— DEMOCRATS & REPUBLICANS —— that turned the U.S. Senate into a nest of traitors.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...rs-Needs-The-Black-Vote&p=3213331#post3213331


. . . the XVII Amendment did more for long-serving hags than it did for their male counterparts. That says a lot when you look at the worst of them —— Joe Biden (36 years), John Kerry (23 years), Patrick Leahy (45 years) and the late Ted Kennedy (46 years).
​

XXXXX​

Long-serving Republicans were not much better than Democrats since they willing had a hand in everything Democrats did to this country.​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?131032-The-Hag-Era&p=3383636#post3383636


Calling FORMER LONG-SERVING Senator Joe Biden to testify is good for a few laughs. That is as far as it goes. Nobody really expects a nest of traitors to punish one of their own.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ghting-An-Uphill-Battle&p=3437995#post3437995


On top of senators stealing tax dollars legally they enrich family members à la Joe Biden. Repealing the XVI Amendment is a tough go at this time, while repealing the XVII Amendment will at least put the breaks on the blood kin of long-serving parasites.

​
XXXXX
​

Most especially long-serving Democrat senators cannot live with the thought of losing control over earned incomes that built this country before 1917. I am talking abut the very wealthy, and average Americans, protecting their incomes from being confiscated by touchy-feely parasites.

NOTE: The longer Democrats serve in the U.S. Senate the richer they become. The years of senators getting an envelope stuffed with money (BRIBES) under the table disappeared when Democrat parasites got the XVI and XVII Amendments.

In short: Becoming very wealthy on tax dollars is contagious among Senate Democrats. Check the wealth top Senate Democrats accumulated if you doubt me. They all arrive in Washington wearing dirty underwear and leave with steamer trunks full of tax dollars.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?133696-One-More-Obama-Story&p=3456019#post3456019


Considering the Democrats in Congress coupled with long-serving senators, I doubt if nine conservative justices could balance the scale.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?135036-Sad-Sack-Sonia&p=3498032#post3498032


Biden’s bunghole buddy, Ted Kennedy (1932 - 2009), was more than enough reason to repeal the XVII Amendment —— stop long-serving senators from implementing their personal policies more effectively than presidents.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...s-Is-Too-Kind-For-Biden&p=3533626#post3533626


Incidentally, the XVII Amendment is an important reason the country is being destroyed from within. Not only did that UNRATIFIED amendment curse the country with long-serving senators, it gave the worse scum the vote. Until recently, Democrat scum at least had to get off their asses and cast their ballots in person on ELECTION DAY.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...od-News-For-The-Country&p=3689443#post3689443


Every long-serving senator gets more of his personal agenda legislated than did every president after 1945. Ted Kennedy (1932 - 2009) sat in U.S. Senate for 47 years (1962 - 2009). The departed drunk will always be the gold standard for the XVII Amendment.
​

XXXXX​

4. Long-serving senators would lose all influence over deciding who sits on the High Court.​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?149352-Deifying-Maggots&p=3913388#post3913388


. . . Biden’s long-serving tenure in the Senate —— 36 years —— emphasizes the need to repeal the XVII Amendment. Ask yourself this question if you trust long-serving traitors: Do you really believe that a filthy piece of garbage like a former senator, a former vice president, and a wannabe president would be in bed with Communist China today without the XVII AMENDMENT?
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...iracy-Is-Gaining-On-You&p=3949936#post3949936
Click to expand...

TL : DR, The 17th amendment needs repealed. How do you propose to make that happen?

What's the plan, Stan? It's a given Congress will never go along with that.

Lookin' like a hard row to hoe to me.
 
Flanders said:
Click to expand...

Communists use every weapon they can find to murder, cripple, and destroy. The government gives Communists a pass regardless of how Communists kill Americans as long as the violence is done for the New World Order’s political agenda.

On the other hand, Americans shooting someone to defend their Rights are arrested twice —— once in a state court —— then if they are acquitted they are charged and tried a second time in a federal court for committing a so-called hate crime. Note that filthy Communists invented hate crimes, yet they are never charged and tried for a hate crime in a federal court.


The "no issue" red states have gone from predominant to zero.
​

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...te_the_foundational_wisdom_of_federalism.html

My point. Now that not one state prohibits carry I would give everything that can be used as a weapon against Communists trying to kill me Second Amendment protection. Enforcing my suggestion in criminal courts will send Communist freaks scurrying back to their rat holes rather than get rundown by a:





Gun-grabbers have been focusing on outlawing so-called assault rifles. They repeatedly cite the “technology argument” —— i.e. the Second Amendment means muskets only. At the same time Democrats would restrict gun ownership to powder & ball muskets and single shot dueling pistols while the federal government buys the must advanced weapons available for use against the American people. The Second Amendment was put there for protection against tyrannical government; so it follows that Americans must have weapons to protect themselves against government weapons.

Democrats constantly wailing about rifles, the capacity of ammo clips, and ammunition, is one of the smartest pieces of misdirection the sneaks ever thought up.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?121510-Copycat-Coverage&p=3119738#post3119738
 
The woman, from Flint, was shot by a Flint police officer after she allegedly drove up to the officer and fired at him at about 2:14 p.m., police say.

The officer, who was injured, then shot the suspect.
​

Flanders said:
The government gives Communists a pass . . .
Click to expand...

Had the perp lived she would have been given a walk and a chunk of money because a cop shot her.

You can bet that the police officer defending himself will be lucky if he stays out of jail.


Reports in the area are claiming that the black community is considering protests even do we can clearly see that the cop did everything right!
​


Video: Flint Police Shoot Dead 19-Year-Old Woman After Juneteenth Celebration – BLM Is Getting Ready For Protests
June 20, 2021 George Rowe

https://www.usasupreme.com/video-fl...celebration-blm-allegedly-considers-protests/
​
 
Flanders said:
On the other hand, Americans shooting someone to defend their Rights are arrested twice —— once in a state court —— then if they are acquitted they are charged and tried a second time in a federal court for committing a so-called hate crime. Note that filthy Communists invented hate crimes, yet they are never charged and tried for a hate crime in a federal court.
Click to expand...

If either, or both, of these black murderers beat the rap, will they be ". . . charged and tried a second time in a federal court for committing a so-called hate crime.”?


A disturbing story emerged back in March but crucial information about the story is still ignored by the MSM.

Two teens in Rochester, New York set a 53-year-old mentally ill man on fire, ultimately killing him.

The Rochester teenagers who were accused of setting the 53-year-old man on fire are now facing murder charges after the victim died from his injuries.

The boys — ages 14 and 16 — were initially arrested and charged with arson and assault on after allegedly pouring a flammable liquid on Steven Amenhauser and lighting him on fire in his home.

Those charges have now been upgraded after police said Amenhauser died.

In a rare instance, authorities have released the names of the juveniles allegedly behind the murder of 53-year-old Steven Amenhause that occurred on March 12th.

On March 12th, police say that 16-year-old Zayvion Perry and 14-year-old Adriel Riley Jr. had doused Amenhause with a flammable accelerant as he was sitting in a chair inside of his Lyell Avenue apartment and set him on fire.

Interestingly, unlike many past stories written in The New York Times and USA Today, the races of the involved parties were not mentioned. In 2021, that’s rare.

It turns out, the two teens are black and the now-deceased mentally ill man was white. I will ask a simple question: what if the roles were reversed? If two white teens randomly set a mentally ill black man on fire, killing him — it would unequivocally be deemed an act of racism.

Riots would break out, social media would go to war, buildings would burn, and talking points would appear around the clock. Rochester journalist and radio host Bob Lonsberry reports that the two teens instructed the victim to tell authorities they were “white” as they burned him alive.

The Daily Wire confirmed Lonsberry’s report. The demand to lie about the teens’ skin color delivers a strong hint that the assault and murder was possibly racially motivated.

While the order does not definitively prove racism, it’s more evidence toward the label than most incidents the national media has called undoubtedly horrible acts.

Police said he had second-and third-degree burns over 70 percent of his body.

With Riley being 14-years-old, he will be prosecuted as a juvenile offender; and since Perry is 16-years-old, he will be prosecuted as an adolescent offender.
​


Two Black Teens Burn Mentally-Ill White Man Alive And Kill Him – The Media Ignores Another Hate Crime
June 26, 2021
George Rowe

https://www.usasupreme.com/two-blac...ill-him-the-media-ignores-another-hate-crime/
​
 
Last edited:
If you oppose term limits because they are anti-democratic, then repealing the 17th would be even more anti-democratic. At least term limits allows voters to choose their senators while repealing the 17th would give them no vote in the matter.

The 17th is not what allows long-serving senators, it is voters who choose to keep re-electing the same people.

The current average senator serves 12 years--the same as it would be with a two-term limit.

When state legislators chose senators the dominant interests in the state determined the winner and bribery was common; example, how Bogdanovich wanted something for his appointment to Obama's Senate seat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top