In the article The continuing fall of federalism the author George F. Will talks about how senators are trying to change the Constitution. The article was written on February 22, 2009 for the State and is direct towards American readers. In the 17th Amendment said that Senate when occur have the "the executive authority". And also of that affected state "shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies." Also in that amendment said that the legislature of any State may empower executive thereof to make temporary appointments meanwhile the people fill the vacancies by elected at good representative.
The author also states that a no one shall be a Sentor from any state unless such person has een elected by the people thereof. If the vacancies was to happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of the state shall issue writes of election to fill such vacancies.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Assignment #5 M. Capps
In his article "The continued fall of federalism", appearing in The Washington Post, George Will is arguing against Feingold-McCain, an act designed to force states to have an election to fill vacant Senate seats. His main argument against this falls back on "Framers intentions", which is a really weak argument because it is based on the assumption that he knows exactly what the framers had in mind for every situation when the Constitution was written, or that the framers could even begin to imagine what politics would be like in 2009. However, I do agree with him on the point that federalism should be protected and that states should be able to pass their own laws to protect their own interests. An argument could easily be made that popular vote is a horrible way to pick officials, all we have to do is take a good look at some people elected in the past (McCarthy, Blagojevich....Bush). Having some people sitting in the Senate not elected by the generally ignorant masses isn't such a bad thing.
While the general idea Will is trying to put forward is a good one, his use of negative and sarcastic language greatly degrades his argument. Such negative attacks on those he disagrees with has become a Republican trademark and does a disservice to the people that might actually agree with him. In fact his language is so negative that it might sway some people to disagree with him just because it is so painful to read. In my opinion he is blinded by party loyalty and unable to see some of the logical fallicies that are so apparent in his thinking. He uses sensational language and greatly exaggerates the actions of his opponents. Apparently drowning ones opponent in an overwhelming amount of policitally raised money is an issue of free speech, and stopping said drowning amounts to a "gutting" of the first amendment. I'm sorry that you feel that way Mr Will, but a corporation giving millions of dollars to a policital candidate is not an act of policital speech; it amounts to the buying of loyalty from a candidate and a monetary investment for some type of gain later on.
While the general idea Will is trying to put forward is a good one, his use of negative and sarcastic language greatly degrades his argument. Such negative attacks on those he disagrees with has become a Republican trademark and does a disservice to the people that might actually agree with him. In fact his language is so negative that it might sway some people to disagree with him just because it is so painful to read. In my opinion he is blinded by party loyalty and unable to see some of the logical fallicies that are so apparent in his thinking. He uses sensational language and greatly exaggerates the actions of his opponents. Apparently drowning ones opponent in an overwhelming amount of policitally raised money is an issue of free speech, and stopping said drowning amounts to a "gutting" of the first amendment. I'm sorry that you feel that way Mr Will, but a corporation giving millions of dollars to a policital candidate is not an act of policital speech; it amounts to the buying of loyalty from a candidate and a monetary investment for some type of gain later on.
Assignment #5 VMoore
Seen in TheState.com, George Will's article, titled Will: The Continuing Fall of Federalism, explains that Sen Feingold wants to change amendment 17 so that we can elect State Representatives by higher officials rather than an electoral vote. Will thinks we should leave it so that if there is a Senate vacancy, there is a vote by state constituents. Feingold also supports restricting political financing so that there are restrictions on the time, content, and quantity of political speeches.
I think we should leave the law the way it is now. By restricting political financing the people will be withheld information that they could need. Feingold wants to use this to his advantage in the votes of the people. This could make it much easier to have political scandals in almost any situation.
I think we should leave the law the way it is now. By restricting political financing the people will be withheld information that they could need. Feingold wants to use this to his advantage in the votes of the people. This could make it much easier to have political scandals in almost any situation.
Assignment #5 J Miller
The article Will: The continuing fall of federalism appeared in TheState.com written by George F. Will of the Washington Post was directed to the American people. He informs us of the unapologetic Senator Russ Feingold would like to follow his McCain-Feingold evisceration of the 1st Admendment continuing to vandalize the Constitution. Senator Feingold would prefer to amend the 17th Admendment when it comes to filling in vacancies of the U.S. Senate. This causing no person to be Senator of state until such person is elected by the people making the Senate as responsive to the people as possible. Although the Farmers gave three political components of the federal government but also different electors to reinforce separation of powers. If you ask me I think Feingold's ideas of electing in vacancies for the U.S. Senate is dumbfounded and a waste of time. Why not put the next person in charge to fill in the position it's their job. That's why we choose people for these positions, plus it eliminates all that time taking up votes.
Assignment #5, T. Beasley
This article "Will: The Continuing Fall of Federalism", written by George F. Will of the Washington Post and appearing on TheState.com is addressing the American public. He is criticizing the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. He is explaining that the current process of filling Senate vacancies allows for a replacement to be appointed by the state executive authority until an election by the people is convenient.
The change proposed by Feingold-McCain would mandate that the state in question hold an immediate popular election to fill the seat. Will goes on to argue that this would be a further corruption of Federalism. He points out the fact that the Framers intended to divide the power to elect among different powers,"the people, the state legislators and the Electoral College". The 17th Amendment allows the people the right to choose the Senator, but the position can be filled by the executive authority of a state until a popular vote can occur. The proposed change would make it necessary to hold an immediate election to fill the vacancy because it would not allow the executive authority to make "temporary" appointments. If this were the case, all the nonsense that just occured with Blagojevich would have been nonexistent.
Feinfold-McCain, in my opinion, are right on target for keeping the government as it should be: by the people, for the people, of the people. The author of this article is clearly confused as to what makes America function as it should: The power of the popular opinion. This force is what grounds Senators to those to which they owe their position. Would we rather they owe their position of power to the state legislature's "special interests", or to the general population of the state?
The change proposed by Feingold-McCain would mandate that the state in question hold an immediate popular election to fill the seat. Will goes on to argue that this would be a further corruption of Federalism. He points out the fact that the Framers intended to divide the power to elect among different powers,"the people, the state legislators and the Electoral College". The 17th Amendment allows the people the right to choose the Senator, but the position can be filled by the executive authority of a state until a popular vote can occur. The proposed change would make it necessary to hold an immediate election to fill the vacancy because it would not allow the executive authority to make "temporary" appointments. If this were the case, all the nonsense that just occured with Blagojevich would have been nonexistent.
Feinfold-McCain, in my opinion, are right on target for keeping the government as it should be: by the people, for the people, of the people. The author of this article is clearly confused as to what makes America function as it should: The power of the popular opinion. This force is what grounds Senators to those to which they owe their position. Would we rather they owe their position of power to the state legislature's "special interests", or to the general population of the state?
Assignment # 5 S. Suarez
The article “The continuing fall of federalism” by George Will of the Washington Post is directed toward the american public and addresses the topic of federalism in the United States political system.This article was basically written to voice the opinion of George will and protest Sen. Feingolds plan to change an amendment which would allow senators to be selected by higher officials instead of an electoral vote.
I agree with Gerge will's argument because senators should be elected by the people and not other members of the political system. If this amendment change were to happen then the people wouldn't have a say in who gets chosen into office and the senate will be able to chose whoever they want to fill in the vacant seat. This goes against many political standards because this country is supposed to be run by the people; Senators and political seats of power are only supposed to be representitives of the United States. If the goverment were allowed to chose who they want to be in political offices then this would no longer be a country run by the people, Instead it would be run by the government and us americans wouldn't be allowed to have a say in the political process. In the end federlism is a good thing in order to keep this country from going into turmoil.
I agree with Gerge will's argument because senators should be elected by the people and not other members of the political system. If this amendment change were to happen then the people wouldn't have a say in who gets chosen into office and the senate will be able to chose whoever they want to fill in the vacant seat. This goes against many political standards because this country is supposed to be run by the people; Senators and political seats of power are only supposed to be representitives of the United States. If the goverment were allowed to chose who they want to be in political offices then this would no longer be a country run by the people, Instead it would be run by the government and us americans wouldn't be allowed to have a say in the political process. In the end federlism is a good thing in order to keep this country from going into turmoil.
Assignment #5 S.Layman
The article “The continuing fall of federalism” by George Will appeared in the Washington post, and was directed to the public. It shows the oppinion of Mr. Will against Sen. Feingold, because he is trying to change an amendment. One that would allow senators to be selected by higher officials instead of an electoral vote.
In doing so the senate would not be elected by the people who it is supposed to govern. While there are a lot of changes going on in the world (most not for the good of the public) , this just shouldnt be messed with to add to it....and Feingold isnt even appologetic about any of it....
In doing so the senate would not be elected by the people who it is supposed to govern. While there are a lot of changes going on in the world (most not for the good of the public) , this just shouldnt be messed with to add to it....and Feingold isnt even appologetic about any of it....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)