Why is the Idaho Republican party turning against Democracy? Idaho GOP are turning way to extremist lately.

....its kind of hard to take seriously some anonymous, a-hole who is such a coward that he can't blog under his own name.

The whole idea of repealing the 17th Amendment is about denying Idahoans the right to vote -- disenfranchising them if they are not Republicans and limiting even Republican input to those who sign the loyalty oath.

In elections, independents get a say, as do the members of the other parties. In Idaho, however, Republicans have gerrymandered districts enabling radical right control of the legislature -- so much so that one of our finest even commented that if Boise wanted to be represented on committees, they ought to have voted for Republicans. Now, the radical fringe of the party wants to use that control to prevent democrats and independents from having input into who should be elected to the US Senate. It's a naked attack on democracy!

The political cover that the right tries to use -- State's Rights -- would be more credible if these same Republican extremists didn't turn around and bend over for Republican presidents.

Oh, and lest you think this is a rant by some liberal, I've been a member of the Republican party for 38 years and worked for Republican candidates long before that. The right wing in Idaho has gone so far to the right, however, that they're coming out on the statist left.

I find it interesting that a self professed member of the Republican party has little understanding of their own history and constitution. The sooner we as a country return to the "outdated" original principles on which this country was founded, the better off we'll all be as free men and women.

Let's get something clear. We are NOT a democracy ruled by current popular opinion. The shear genius of the founders was that we were deliberately designed as a representative republic. The House of Representatives is the "People's house", elected by popular vote in their districts to reflect the direct will of the people in those districts. The Senate, on the other hand, was designed to represent and protect the interests of the individual states, thereby insuring the 10th amendment is not violated as is often the case now. If you take the time to read Madison in "The Federalist #62," his reasoning is sound and has proven true with the advent of the 17th amendent. The House and Senate were designed as two very diffent bodies on purpose to insure a checks and balances system.(Did I mention that your state representatives are elected by popular vote?)

The 17th amendment to elect senators by popular vote and disregard states rights was part of the original progressive movement which also gave us the 16th amendment (and the IRS to enforce it) and the Fereral Reserve Bank. How's that working out for us so far? And, did I mention that the president is elected to represent the country as a whole and not as a cheer leader for his or her party? But I digress.

My friend, if you truly are a Republican then perhaps you should reconsider your party affiation and join the progressive democratic movement which is bent on dismantling the US Constitution and your Bill of Rights by any and all means necessary. You would be better served to understand your own history and the "revolutonaries" that enabled you to give us your view of the world.

I wonder how the Idaho Republicans would feel about this repeal if they were in the minority. Being such strict constitutionists I'm sure they would feel just the same.

Yeah, right.

And as far as returning to the "original principles on which this country was founded," I'm not so sure women or blacks are quite down with giving up the right to vote.

become disfunctional and lended itself to more political insiders and power brokers making deals to get elected. I understand the original intent, but modern political practices would make this just one more way for the process to be closed to the public and for political interests to rule the day over the interests of the citizens of Idaho.

The anti-federalist papers refered to, were part of an on going discussion in the country at the time to decide what form of government we would become. Much like today, there was a raging debate about a variety of issues, including slavery, etc. Little piece of trivia: Were you aware that the term "and the pursuit of happiness" in the constitution was changed from "and the pursuit of property"? The reason for the change was due to the fact that colonies opposed to slavery in the north did not want to enable slave owners to claim that they had a constitutional right to own slaves which they considered property. This ultimately led to the Civil War that righted the evil of slavery in this country.

Back to the issue of US Senators. The main reason for repeal is that it limits the power of the federal government and restores states rights. (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 10th Amedment)

"When governmental power is consolidated and unlimited it is unresponsive to the needs of the governed." I think it fair to say that is exactly what is happening today. When you consider that state governments claim a responsibility to address questions in the areas of taxation, education, employment, disaster relief, public safety, transportation, health care, marriage, property rights, etc. Yet all of those issues are primarily mandated, regulated, or directed out of Washington, DC, far away from the states being impacted by those policies. While the state governments have much of the responsibility for their citizens, they only have secondary authority to do anything about the issues they face. When federal courts decline to interpret the 10th Amendment as protecting the sovereignty of states, without a voice in the U.S. Senate the states have no recourse. Repealing the 17th would address this deficiency.

It's heartening to see that someone knows the founding writings and picked right up on the Declaration of Independence quote. The point remains however, that states OR the people in them are not being represented as intended by the founding fathers. A senate controlled by the interests of the individual states, instead of the large special interest campaign donors now controlling them, would not have allowed themselves to be steamrolled by this current progressive agenda to "fundamentally change America."

But perhaps then, it's time to do away with all these old, outdated silly rights and replace them with a new Bill of Rights? Rights that would include the right to pass on TRILLIONS of dollars of debt to our children, grandchildren and future generations? We will have rights like health care for all! (Modeled of course, after places like say--the UK, Canada and Cuba where it works so well.) Perhaps the right to a federal bailout if your (government?) company is too big to fail? (The government always does a better job!) Or perhaps something like the right to finance reform where we could create more regulators to insure that the regulators being regulated are doing their jobs properly. Evil capitalist systems can't have too much regulation! Now of course, that will exempt Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who we will have to write a blank check to, so they can keep loaning money to people for homes, who have no means to pay the loan back. After all, they too have the right to own a house! And then we could let some of the pillars of the Senate and House of Rep's draft the Bill. Bold men of character like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who have NO connection to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae!

Yes, I can see the logic of it now. Social Justice for all! A country where we can all drive GM (Government Motors)cars powered by wind(so Mother Earth won't melt!) Ah yes comrades, our beloved leaders out of Washington DC could make the decisions for us and take care of our every need. After all, it's the American way--right? No need to gum up the works by letting some pesky state senators get in the way of wonderful progressive ideas. After all, the outdated ideas and rights were drafted by old racist, bigoted white guys who were clueless about the future needs of their country.

Think long and hard friends, it's a slippery slope and when YOUR freedoms are gone, we won't be having this discussion. Just ask Hugo down in Venezuela where all those new progressive ideas are working out so well.