Is it Time to Repeal the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

[longknife]

Section 3 of the constitution says:

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.

The 17th Amendment, approved by the states in 1913, changed selecting senators from the state legislatures to popular vote of state residents. This was supposed to stop corruption in the selection process. 1912 was the year that Woodrow Wilson was elected president and his legacy still haunts us to this day.


There were many reasons the Founders set things up the way they did. They wanted the most powerful body in our nation to be the House of Representatives, directly elected by individual voters in small districts. Senators were to represent the various states in their dream of states having more rights than the central, federal government. The chief executive was to be elected under Article II by Electors chosen by the states but not elected officials. Again, this was designed to give the individual states more power than the federal government.


Enough of the lecture. Back to the question. Should we demand that our individual representatives seek to restore the Constitution to its original intent? Not only repeal the 17th but return presidential elections to what Article II originally called for?


Remember, it has to pass the house and senate by a 2/3 vote before being sent to the states.

 

[Silhouette]

The 17th Amendment, approved by the states in 1913, changed selecting senators from the state legislatures to popular vote of state residents. This was supposed to stop corruption in the selection process. 1912 was the year that Woodrow Wilson was elected president and his legacy still haunts us to this day....
...Enough of the lecture. Back to the question. Should we demand that our individual representatives seek to restore the Constitution to its original intent? Not only repeal the 17th but return presidential elections to what Article II originally called for?..

You want to lock up the crony club tight don't you? By the time officials make it to state legislatures, they know how to be owned, how to play the pocket-money game with lobbiests and special interests..

No, I think the way it is, is just fine thank you. There needs to be more power in the little guy, not less. As if Citizen's United wasn't enough of a blow. Now you promote this?

Be on guard people...fascism isn't just coming from the left...

 

[Zmrzlina]

Let me get this straight, you want the citizen to have less of a voice of who is in D.C. making legislation?

 

[bripat9643]

Let me get this straight, you want the citizen to have less of a voice of who is in D.C. making legislation?

No, I just don't want citizens from other states to have any say who chooses my Senator.

 

[haissem123]

Section 3 of the constitution says:

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.

The 17th Amendment, approved by the states in 1913, changed selecting senators from the state legislatures to popular vote of state residents. This was supposed to stop corruption in the selection process. 1912 was the year that Woodrow Wilson was elected president and his legacy still haunts us to this day.


There were many reasons the Founders set things up the way they did. They wanted the most powerful body in our nation to be the House of Representatives, directly elected by individual voters in small districts. Senators were to represent the various states in their dream of states having more rights than the central, federal government. The chief executive was to be elected under Article II by Electors chosen by the states but not elected officials. Again, this was designed to give the individual states more power than the federal government.


Enough of the lecture. Back to the question. Should we demand that our individual representatives seek to restore the Constitution to its original intent? Not only repeal the 17th but return presidential elections to what Article II originally called for?


Remember, it has to pass the house and senate by a 2/3 vote before being sent to the states.

the system is a big lie either way. it's not for the people and we all know a few riding the top usually aren't. that's how they got to the top, remember?

 

[Zmrzlina]

Let me get this straight, you want the citizen to have less of a voice of who is in D.C. making legislation?

No, I just don't want citizens from other states to have any say who chooses my Senator.

How is that the case now and what does that have to do with repealing the 17th amendment?

 

[bripat9643]

Let me get this straight, you want the citizen to have less of a voice of who is in D.C. making legislation?

No, I just don't want citizens from other states to have any say who chooses my Senator.

How is that the case now and what does that have to do with repealing the 17th amendment?

Senators receive much of their donations for national corporations and much of the rest from citizens of other states. I myself contributed to the campaigns of several Senators in other states. If they are chosen by state legislatures, then they would truly have to carry out the will of the people in their state. They might actually even have to return to their states at times other than every six years. If a state legislature didn't approve of Obamacare, then the chances a Senator of that state voting for it are zero.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Let me get this straight, you want the citizen to have less of a voice of who is in D.C. making legislation?

No, I just don't want citizens from other states to have any say who chooses my Senator.

How is that the case now and what does that have to do with repealing the 17th amendment?

How is that true now? Kay Hagan got about 30 million from out side sources in her failed reelection bid.

 

[norwegen]

The states should choose their own representatives and the delegates for the electoral college, as originally intended.

Alas, the progressives tell and retell their alternative narrative, and the uninformed left keeps believing it, that the senators and the president represent them.

The senators represent the states and the president represents the United States. But the "gimme" mentality of the left just couldn't leave that alone.

 

[bripat9643]

Let me get this straight, you want the citizen to have less of a voice of who is in D.C. making legislation?

No, I just don't want citizens from other states to have any say who chooses my Senator.

How is that the case now and what does that have to do with repealing the 17th amendment?

How is that true now? Kay Hagan got about 30 million from out side sources in her failed reelection bid.

And how much did she get from corporations which have no allegiance to any particular state?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Repeal the 17th.

 

[Zmrzlina]

Let me get this straight, you want the citizen to have less of a voice of who is in D.C. making legislation?

No, I just don't want citizens from other states to have any say who chooses my Senator.

How is that the case now and what does that have to do with repealing the 17th amendment?

Senators receive much of their donations for national corporations and much of the rest from citizens of other states. I myself contributed to the campaigns of several Senators in other states. If they are chosen by state legislatures, then they would truly have to carry out the will of the people in their state. They might actually even have to return to their states at times other than every six years. If a state legislature didn't approve of Obamacare, then the chances a Senator of that state voting for it are zero.

There are a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions in this post. The idea of buying elections/ elections going to the highest bidder, does not hold up under empirical scrutiny. Sure money can influence a race but fact of the matter is a state's citizens vote for their representatives. How are you sure that senator selection by the legislature is going to be corruption free? You have no reason to believe this. At face value this is nothing more then limiting how much influence a citizen has over who makes and passes laws in D.C.

 

[Vigilante]

TERM LIMITS, no more than 8 years combined!

Oh, and make it a FELONY for any former member of Congress and their immediate family to work as LOBBYISTS!

 

[longknife]

This article is a follow up of my previous post on this. I still think it's the right thing to do. Read the article with links @ Grim s Hall Repeal the 17th