Georgia GOP Legislators Want To Change 17th Amendment, End U.S. Senate Elections

[Lakhota]

By John Celock

A group of Republican state lawmakers in Georgia wants to end direct election of United States senators and return the power to state legislatures.

The resolution calls on Congress to begin the process of repealing the 17th Amendment, passed in 1913, which provided for the direct election of senators. State Rep. Kevin Cooke (R-Carrollton), the main sponsor of the resolution, told the Douglas County Sentinel that moving the power back to state legislatures would allow for the original intent of the Constitution.

“It’s a way we would again have our voice heard in the federal government, a way that doesn’t exist now,” Cooke told the paper. “This isn’t an idea of mine. This was what James Madison was writing. This would be a restoration of the Constitution, about how government is supposed to work.”

In the text of the resolution, Cooke cites Madison's writing in the Federalist Papers, specifying that members of the Senate would be "elected absolutely and exclusively by state legislatures."

The resolution says the 17th Amendment has prevented state governments from having a say in federal government and that repealing the amendment would hold U.S. senators accountable to the states. The federal government has grown in "size and scope," it says, in the century since the amendment was adopted.

The 17th Amendment was adopted out of concern for state-level corruption influencing Senate elections, which Cooke said would not be the case now.

More: Georgia Legislators Want To Change 17th Amendment, End U.S. Senate Elections

 

[Stephanie]

so? it's been talked about before

 

[Lakhota]

Yeah, I'm sure there is no more "concern for state-level corruption influencing Senate elections" in an honorable red state like Georgia - and other red states...

Maybe they can work on changing the 17th Amendment after they finish rigging the electoral college system...

 

[Stephanie]

Oh for crying out loud..

are you ever not unhappy?

 

[OriginalShroom]

I would like to see the 17th overturned.

The Senate is supposed to represent the individual States. The way it is now, the States have no Representation in Washington.

 

[Stephanie]

I would like to see the 17th overturned.

The Senate is supposed to represent the individual States. The way it is now, the States have no Representation in Washington.

yep, I agree

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, I'm sure there is no more "concern for state-level corruption influencing Senate elections" in an honorable red state like Georgia - and other red states...

Maybe they can work on changing the 17th Amendment after they finish rigging the electoral college system...

Yeah, right, the federal government is the sin qua non of purity in politics!

If there's anyone we should be suspicious of when it comes to rigging elections, it's the Democrat Party. Recent revelations have made that abundantly clear.

 

[Borillar]

I would like to see the 17th overturned.

The Senate is supposed to represent the individual States. The way it is now, the States have no Representation in Washington.

yep, I agree

How do you figure? The residents of the state vote for their Senators. Each state gets two Senators. Ergo, the state is represented in the Senate.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

It really makes no sense to have a House and a Senate when both are elected by the general public. The original idea was for the public to choose House members and the states choose the Senate. It still makes sense. People will say "what about democracy?" but the supreme court is not elected.

 

[Lakhota]

It really makes no sense to have a House and a Senate when both are elected by the general public. The original idea was for the public to choose House members and the states choose the Senate. It still makes sense. People will say "what about democracy?" but the supreme court is not elected.

Several things have changed since the "original idea"...

SCOTUS is elected - indirectly by elected presidential appointment and confirmed by elected Senate.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
How do you figure? The residents of the state vote for their Senators. Each state gets two Senators. Ergo, the state is represented in the Senate.

Please - you're embarrassing the whole board.

 

[Stephanie]

it really makes no sense to have a house and a senate when both are elected by the general public. The original idea was for the public to choose house members and the states choose the senate. It still makes sense. People will say "what about democracy?" but the supreme court is not elected.

several things have changed since the "original idea"...

Scotus is elected - indirectly by elected presidential appointment and confirmed by elected senate.

omg twisted

 

[ShootSpeeders]

It really makes no sense to have a House and a Senate when both are elected by the general public. The original idea was for the public to choose House members and the states choose the Senate. It still makes sense. People will say "what about democracy?" but the supreme court is not elected.

Several things have changed since the "original idea"...

SCOTUS is elected - indirectly by elected presidential appointment and confirmed by elected Senate.

Indirectly doesn't count. THINK

 

[Borillar]

[
How do you figure? The residents of the state vote for their Senators. Each state gets two Senators. Ergo, the state is represented in the Senate.

Please - you're embarrassing the whole board.

Sorry, I don't listen to Rush or follow the right wing blogs. How is it that the states aren't represented in the Senate? The citizens in their respective states elect their Senators to represent them. Please connect the dots for me. How is it better that state bureaucrats select Senators rather than the people? Would that give the Republicans a short term advantage in numbers or something?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“It’s a way we would again have our voice heard in the federal government, a way that doesn’t exist now,” Cooke told the paper. “This isn’t an idea of mine. This was what James Madison was writing. This would be a restoration of the Constitution, about how government is supposed to work.”

BS.

It’s a way republicans think they can retain permanent control of the Senate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[
How do you figure? The residents of the state vote for their Senators. Each state gets two Senators. Ergo, the state is represented in the Senate.

Please - you're embarrassing the whole board.

Sorry, I don't listen to Rush or follow the right wing blogs. How is it that the states aren't represented in the Senate? The citizens in their respective states elect their Senators to represent them. Please connect the dots for me. How is it better that state bureaucrats select Senators rather than the people? Would that give the Republicans a short term advantage in numbers or something?

A long-term advantage, they would hope.

It’s all partisan, having nothing to do with ‘restoring the Constitution.’

All republicans would have to do is retain control of a majority of state houses, which wouldn’t be difficult since most red states are gerrymandered in favor of the GOP. With no more statewide elections for the Senate, no more democrats would be elected, such as Bill Nelson in Florida, for example. Republican state houses can then appoint republican senators, and consequently retain control of the Senate.

 

[Darkwind]

[
How do you figure? The residents of the state vote for their Senators. Each state gets two Senators. Ergo, the state is represented in the Senate.

Please - you're embarrassing the whole board.

Sorry, I don't listen to Rush or follow the right wing blogs. How is it that the states aren't represented in the Senate? The citizens in their respective states elect their Senators to represent them. Please connect the dots for me. How is it better that state bureaucrats select Senators rather than the people? Would that give the Republicans a short term advantage in numbers or something?

The Senators pander to the citizens of their respective states and play Santa Claus for them. This means that they represent their own interests, and care nothing for the interests of their State.

If the Senators were once again chosen by the State Legislatures to defend the needs and rights of the States in the US Congress, the partisan deadlocks might come to an end.

As it stands now, the Senate is a joke.

 

[Darkwind]

Please - you're embarrassing the whole board.

Sorry, I don't listen to Rush or follow the right wing blogs. How is it that the states aren't represented in the Senate? The citizens in their respective states elect their Senators to represent them. Please connect the dots for me. How is it better that state bureaucrats select Senators rather than the people? Would that give the Republicans a short term advantage in numbers or something?

A long-term advantage, they would hope.

It’s all partisan, having nothing to do with ‘restoring the Constitution.’

All republicans would have to do is retain control of a majority of state houses, which wouldn’t be difficult since most red states are gerrymandered in favor of the GOP. With no more statewide elections for the Senate, no more democrats would be elected, such as Bill Nelson in Florida, for example. Republican state houses can then appoint republican senators, and consequently retain control of the Senate.

then all Democrats have to do is win State Legislatures......

 

[Borillar]

Sorry, I don't listen to Rush or follow the right wing blogs. How is it that the states aren't represented in the Senate? The citizens in their respective states elect their Senators to represent them. Please connect the dots for me. How is it better that state bureaucrats select Senators rather than the people? Would that give the Republicans a short term advantage in numbers or something?

A long-term advantage, they would hope.

It’s all partisan, having nothing to do with ‘restoring the Constitution.’

All republicans would have to do is retain control of a majority of state houses, which wouldn’t be difficult since most red states are gerrymandered in favor of the GOP. With no more statewide elections for the Senate, no more democrats would be elected, such as Bill Nelson in Florida, for example. Republican state houses can then appoint republican senators, and consequently retain control of the Senate.

then all Democrats have to do is win State Legislatures......

...and gerrymander their districts so that it stays that way.

 

[Borillar]

Please - you're embarrassing the whole board.

Sorry, I don't listen to Rush or follow the right wing blogs. How is it that the states aren't represented in the Senate? The citizens in their respective states elect their Senators to represent them. Please connect the dots for me. How is it better that state bureaucrats select Senators rather than the people? Would that give the Republicans a short term advantage in numbers or something?

The Senators pander to the citizens of their respective states and play Santa Claus for them. This means that they represent their own interests, and care nothing for the interests of their State.

If the Senators were once again chosen by the State Legislatures to defend the needs and rights of the States in the US Congress, the partisan deadlocks might come to an end.

As it stands now, the Senate is a joke.

So you don't think that the citizens of any given state care about the needs and rights of their state?