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

[PredFan]

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

Good idea. That's the way the founding fathers set it up.

Do you realize that the country of Mexico has more representation in Washington than the State of Arizona?

 

[nodoginnafight]

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

And make Senate elections subject to state's gerrymandering????

No thanks.

 

[AmyNation]

It's an interesting idea to talk about, but it'll never happen and as it stands right now, it shouldn't.

I understand the reasoning behind it, but lets be honest, with the way both parties have totally twisted redistricting, it would only allow gerrymandering to get further out of control.


Although I find it unsurprising that the party that has recently referred to a majority of Americans as free loaders and users, is suggesting that Americans aren't smart enough to elect their own senators.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh for crying out loud..

are you ever not unhappy?

If Progressives lived in a country where everyone made the exact same amount of money, got everything for free, had no guns and Obama was president for Life, they'd still be miserable; it's in their DNA

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Using your own argument if we return to the Senate being appointed by the States, the Governor is elected or if the State uses its legislature to fill the spots, they are all elected as well. Or is that DIFFERENT?

 

[AmyNation]

Remeber that while yes, the founders intended for senators to be appointed not elected, it was changed for very real reasons. There were huge problems with the appointing, including corruption, seat buying and deadlocks.

The way the founders wanted it, didn't work. So, while you might say what we have now isnt working(could be it isn't), going back to what didn't work before isn't a solution either.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Remeber that while yes, the founders intended for senators to be appointed not elected, it was changed for very real reasons. There were huge problems with the appointing, including corruption, seat buying and deadlocks.

The way the founders wanted it, didn't work. So, while you might say what we have now isnt working(could be it isn't), going back to what didn't work before isn't a solution either.

You are on a roll today. Right on target again.

I always get a kick out of some folks who say "founding fathers" in hushed tones with lots of genuflecting and sprinkling of holy water.

imho the United States of America in 2013 is a better reflection of the ideals and principles in the Declaration of Independence than we were in 1776.

"Perfecting the Union" has been a long hard road and we're a long way from a stopping point (imho). But we're better than we were.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Remeber that while yes, the founders intended for senators to be appointed not elected, it was changed for very real reasons. There were huge problems with the appointing, including corruption, seat buying and deadlocks.

The way the founders wanted it, didn't work. So, while you might say what we have now isnt working(could be it isn't), going back to what didn't work before isn't a solution either.

You are on a roll today. Right on target again.

I always get a kick out of some folks who say "founding fathers" in hushed tones with lots of genuflecting and sprinkling of holy water.

imho the United States of America in 2013 is a better reflection of the ideals and principles in the Declaration of Independence than we were in 1776.

"Perfecting the Union" has been a long hard road and we're a long way from a stopping point (imho). But we're better than we were.

So when will we see the amendment to change the 2nd? Or do you agree the Government can just ignore inconvenient parts of the Constitution?

 

[Borillar]

Remeber that while yes, the founders intended for senators to be appointed not elected, it was changed for very real reasons. There were huge problems with the appointing, including corruption, seat buying and deadlocks.

The way the founders wanted it, didn't work. So, while you might say what we have now isnt working(could be it isn't), going back to what didn't work before isn't a solution either.

You are on a roll today. Right on target again.

I always get a kick out of some folks who say "founding fathers" in hushed tones with lots of genuflecting and sprinkling of holy water.

imho the United States of America in 2013 is a better reflection of the ideals and principles in the Declaration of Independence than we were in 1776.

"Perfecting the Union" has been a long hard road and we're a long way from a stopping point (imho). But we're better than we were.

So when will we see the amendment to change the 2nd? Or do you agree the Government can just ignore inconvenient parts of the Constitution?

I really doubt that we will ever see a repeal of the 2nd amendment. I'm afraid that gun control has become a dog whistle issue for democrats in the same way that abortion has for republicans. There may be a few restrictions put in the way of both, but nothing really meaningful will change. It is too useful as a wedge issue to be brought out every election cycle.

 

[g5000]

It isn't enough that state legislators gerrymander Congressional districts to the point that Congressmen have a 98 percent re-election rate, now they want to be able to pick Senators, too. Cut the People out of the loop entirely.

GREAT IDEA!!!!

 

[Mustang]

Oh for crying out loud..

are you ever not unhappy?

It isn't odd (yeah, I said it's NOT odd) that these ideas manage to spring up when conservatives either lose an election and/or get the impression that they can't win anytime soon unless they make these kinds of changes.

So, what was it recently in VA? They wanted to change electoral college representation to be based on districts won as opposed to the overall winner of the popular vote. As I recall, that would have awarded something like 9 of 13 electoral college votes to Romney even though he lost the popular vote.

Most people SHOULD be outraged by efforts by EITHER political party to circumvent the will of the voters. And that includes disenfranchising voters or suppressing the vote by making it more difficult for people to vote in elections.

After all, when I hear conservatives talk about how freedom and democracy is sacred to them in one breath, and in the next breath I hear them hatch one or more schemes which are specifically meant to win elections even if they can't manage to garner the most votes, I can't help but figure that their love of democracy is conditional on them being in power.

 

[Erand7899]

Oh for crying out loud..

are you ever not unhappy?

It isn't odd (yeah, I said it's NOT odd) that these ideas manage to spring up when conservatives either lose an election and/or get the impression that they can't win anytime soon unless they make these kinds of changes.

So, what was it recently in VA? They wanted to change electoral college representation to be based on districts won as opposed to the overall winner of the popular vote. As I recall, that would have awarded something like 9 of 13 electoral college votes to Romney even though he lost the popular vote.

Most people SHOULD be outraged by efforts by EITHER political party to circumvent the will of the voters. And that includes disenfranchising voters or suppressing the vote by making it more difficult for people to vote in elections.

After all, when I hear conservatives talk about how freedom and democracy is sacred to them in one breath, and in the next breath I hear them hatch one or more schemes which are specifically meant to win elections even if they can't manage to garner the most votes, I can't help but figure that their love of democracy is conditional on them being in power.

States have the right to distribute their electoral votes any way that they choose to do so. If a state so desires, the state legislators can select the presidential electors themselves, and forget about a public vote. So much for your democracy.

The original intent, was for the House of Representatives to speak for the people, and the Senate to speak for the individual state legislators. Senators were beholden to the state legislatures for their jobs, and that was the party they needed to please. However, that system was not friendly to the desires of career politicians who wanted to be more like the Representatives who could buy their seats from the people. Consequently, the amendment, and the first bastardization of the power system established by the founders.

Now, we have both houses catering to the people who elect them, and government is not the beneficiary of this system.

BTW, although we use the term "Democracy" quite a bit, we are not a democracy at the state and federal level, and never were. We are a republic, and need to stay a republic.

 

[AmyNation]

Lest we all forget, it is not easy to amend the constitution. The 17th wast some rushed bill no one bothered to read. It wasnt something one party pushed despite the other.

For anyone who thinks we should repeal the 17th, I would ask, what are your solutions to the problems that made the 17th necessary?

 

[Erand7899]

Lest we all forget, it is not easy to amend the constitution. The 17th wast some rushed bill no one bothered to read. It wasnt something one party pushed despite the other.

For anyone who thinks we should repeal the 17th, I would ask, what are your solutions to the problems that made the 17th necessary?

There were no problems that made the 17th Amendment necessary. Those problems were manufactured to accomplish a goal that ambitious senators desired. If the opposing party was in power at the end of their six year term, it was most likely they would not be reappointed. Once they got the power of a senator, they did not want to give it up.

Representatives could get reelected easily by catering to their constituants, and senators desired the same means of retaining power.

As seen by recent scandals, some senate seats are bought, even under the current system. All senate seats are bought by the special interests, who provide the campaign cash for the senators to use to cater to their voters.

 

[bripat9643]

Lest we all forget, it is not easy to amend the constitution. The 17th wast some rushed bill no one bothered to read. It wasnt something one party pushed despite the other.

For anyone who thinks we should repeal the 17th, I would ask, what are your solutions to the problems that made the 17th necessary?

There were no problems that made the 17th necessary. Instead there was a huge propaganda campaign by the worshipers of the all powerful state.

 

[Trajan]

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

hey, they never should have changed it in the first place. it made them more creatures of the beltway than their own states legislature and individual states interests. fine by me, change it back.

thx for your opinion on the matter though

 

[Trajan]

Oh for crying out loud..

are you ever not unhappy?

It isn't odd (yeah, I said it's NOT odd) that these ideas manage to spring up when conservatives either lose an election and/or get the impression that they can't win anytime soon unless they make these kinds of changes.

So, what was it recently in VA? They wanted to change electoral college representation to be based on districts won as opposed to the overall winner of the popular vote. As I recall, that would have awarded something like 9 of 13 electoral college votes to Romney even though he lost the popular vote.

Most people SHOULD be outraged by efforts by EITHER political party to circumvent the will of the voters. And that includes disenfranchising voters or suppressing the vote by making it more difficult for people to vote in elections.

After all, when I hear conservatives talk about how freedom and democracy is sacred to them in one breath, and in the next breath I hear them hatch one or more schemes which are specifically meant to win elections even if they can't manage to garner the most votes, I can't help but figure that their love of democracy is conditional on them being in power.

It isn't odd (yeah, I said it's NOT odd) that these ideas manage to spring up when conservatives either lose an election and/or get the impression that they can't win anytime soon unless they make these kinds of changes

and isn't it odd, ( yea I said it is odd though it isn't) that whenever the dems are in power and they cannot , even with supra majorities ram anything they desire up our rear ends ( like cap and trade) they claim the "system is broken" and it doesn't work anymore, this would be a change back to what it was, they way I believe the framers intended it........

 

[AmyNation]

So, you're all going with

"The vacant senate seats that went unfilled because of deadlock, all the corruption and seat buying investigations were a whole lot of nothing"

?


Really? So the whole nation pushed for an amendment that had overwhelming support because.... They had nothing better to do?

 

[zzzz]

Heck the electorate has mucked up everything anyway. Lets go back to the way it was and let the state machines appoint senators. With the demographics changing so rapidly in the next 8 years the repubs are going to find out a dire truth.

 

[bripat9643]

So, you're all going with

"The vacant senate seats that went unfilled because of deadlock, all the corruption and seat buying investigations were a whole lot of nothing"

?


Really? So the whole nation pushed for an amendment that had overwhelming support because.... They had nothing better to do?

Yeah, we don't have corruption and seat buying now, do we?