Repeal the 17th Amendment!

[Navy1960]

The Federalist No. 62

The Senate

Independent Journal
Wednesday, February 27, 1788
[James Madison]

II. It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

III. The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a proportional share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils
The Federalist #62

Makes you wonder if direct election of Senators is congenial with public opinion as the 17th Amendment calls for, I suspect it is, because many Americans would not wish to part with the right to select their own Senators and impart that back upon a Legislature or Agent to elect a Senator for them. The other issue I have seen here is a question by some "why have a Senate" I think James Madison rightly pointed out the reasons for having a Senate in this nation.

 

[Toro]

Oh Hey !!!

That is really working for us.

Works better than it did under the old system

Only if your idea of "working better" is to allow most power to flow to Washington D.C.

As usual, we find that the discussion boils down to who you want running your life.

Most liberals seem to think the morons we complain about are worthy of even more power. Hell, let them run health care.

Whereas most conservatives (not including GWB) feel that states powers and a corrleated model at an even smaller level is better. And all of that is only with minimal input. My vote for my state senator is roughly 100 times more powerful than my vote form fedeal senator.

And my state legislator knows me by name. My federal senators only know their lobbyists by name....

But that system is working better !!!

Allowing a politician to make the decision for me on how I should be governed is much more Big Government than allowing me to vote directly.

Your argument is exactly the same argument the Left uses for socialized medicine. "If the people are unhappy with socialized medicine, they'll vote the party out and vote for the party that gives them better medical care." In both socialized medicine and appointing senators, it is government making the decisions for you and taking power away from the individual.

 

[Toro]

Why Repeal 17th Amendment?

How many times have you had your U.S. Senator approach you and discuss impending legislation with you? Even though you voted for them, they probably did not contact you once. But how many times do you suppose they contacted Enron about impending legislation. Enron and other corporations financed their campaigns, to the tune of millions of dollars, to get you to vote these senators into office. You can safely bet that your U.S. Senators discuss impending legislation with these corporations on a routine basis.

How often do U.S. Senators discuss federal affairs with your state legislator? I am still looking for a state legislator who has been contacted by their U.S. Senator regarding federal affairs.

Prior to the enactment of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution the U.S. Senators discussed federal affairs with their state legislators on a regular basis. At THAT time U.S. Senators did not have to raise millions of dollars to run for office. They were not beholden to the large corporations.

There is no way our U.S. Senators are going to personally discuss federal affairs with, and handle the input from, 900,000 people. The only choice we have before us is to have them discuss our federal affairs with the State Legislatures as opposed to the large corporations. As originally included in the U.S. Constitution, the people of the states will continue to enjoy the right to vote for their U.S. Representatives.

I am including the final version of my presentation which I gave today before the Montana Senate Judiciary Committee.

One reason why we have the 17th amendment is because Senator offices were bought and sold like property. There were several investigations into corruption on Senate seats in the 19th century. All appointing Senators would do is flow the corruption from the national level to the state level.

FTR, the largest contributor to Jeb Bush's gubernatorial campaigns was Enron. Those contributions to Bush and the state Republican party would have skyrocketed exponentially had the state appointed Senators.

Now they're basically appointments for life...Some progress.

I assume you have now read my later post about Senators serving on average 11-13 years.

 

[Oddball]

Makes you wonder if direct election of Senators is congenial with public opinion as the 17th Amendment calls for, I suspect it is, because many Americans would not wish to part with the right to select their own Senators and impart that back upon a Legislature or Agent to elect a Senator for them. The other issue I have seen here is a question by some "why have a Senate" I think James Madison rightly pointed out the reasons for having a Senate in this nation.

But you do, albeit indirectly, get to choose who your Senators are, by electing state representatives who will support your choice for who that will be.

What's happening at the core boils down to a variation on the electoral college within the states.

 

[Toro]

You get your choice for Senators at the state level, when you vote for your state legislatures and Governor....Therefore, when you have the natural turnover which occurs within the state houses, then your Senators also tend to turn over, rather than them being a reflection of how your state operated several decades ago....Then you don't have a basically imperial Senate, populated with fossils like Dole, McCain, Kennedy, Byrd, Lugar, ad nauseum, hanging around like herpes.

You are taking away my vote and putting your faith in the government on how I should be governed. You are taking away my individual choice. That is Big Gubmint.

And, as I pointed out earlier, federal spending and bureaucracy has swelled in the last century, from the scant couple of percent it was for the first 150 years of America's existence, to a level approaching 1/4 of all GDP...If you want to claim that this is all coincidental, I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Why do you assume it wouldn't be more spending? Are you arguing that state politicians are less venal and corrupt? If so, whatever you're smoking, pass me some. The idea that an unelected Senate would adhere closer to the principles of the Founding Fathers is merely romantic claptrap.

 

[Oddball]

One reason why we have the 17th amendment is because Senator offices were bought and sold like property. There were several investigations into corruption on Senate seats in the 19th century. All appointing Senators would do is flow the corruption from the national level to the state level.

FTR, the largest contributor to Jeb Bush's gubernatorial campaigns was Enron. Those contributions to Bush and the state Republican party would have skyrocketed exponentially had the state appointed Senators.

Now they're basically appointments for life...Some progress.

I assume you have now read my later post about Senators serving on average 11-13 years.

With many of them who could easily be re-elected choosing to leave voluntarily....Some to take other federal positions.

What's the percentage that gets voted out?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I've never understood this argument from people who claim to be libertarians or conservatives. According to the political right, government is a total fuck-up. It can't do anything right. We should leave it to the market. People should have as much say over their daily lives and choices and the government should have less because people know more about their wants and needs than the government. But according to those who say we should appoint Senators, giving more power to government officials and taking away the individual's choice is a good thing. Appointing Senators means government officials dictate to you how you are going to be governed and takes away the choice of the individual. IOW, Big Gubmint knows best on how everyone should be governed than the individual. It's a big contradiction.

It is.

Much of the contradiction is predicated on the conservative/libertarian understanding of ‘big government,’ which is rightist code for ‘Federal government,’ where state and local governments can do no wrong. A study of the case law over the last 60 years, however, indicates state and local governments are more likely to violate their citizens’ civil liberties, not the Federal government. From Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 to Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, we see case after case of citizens bringing suit against their states and local governments in Federal court, seeking relief from civil rights violations.

Another argument is that the Founding Fathers knew what was best when they appointed Senators because it would lead to mob rule. If they knew best, they also knew best that the document they had written wasn't infallible. They understood that times change. That's why they put in a mechanism to amend the Constitution. They knew best that even if the principals they espoused were timeless, the law and how people were governed was not. The law and how individuals are governed changes throughout time. The constitution was written 225 years ago. It was not written exactly for 2012, 225 years later, anymore than it was written exactly for 1562, 225 years prior. So even though the principals may be timeless, the law is not.

The above is in essence paraphrasing Justice Kennedy in Lawrence:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

 

[Toro]

Now they're basically appointments for life...Some progress.

I assume you have now read my later post about Senators serving on average 11-13 years.

With many of them who could easily be re-elected choosing to leave voluntarily....Some to take other federal positions.

What's the percentage that gets voted out?

I don't know. In 2010, 15 Senators were either defeated or retired, or nearly half that were up for election. What I do know is that they don't serve a lifetime.

 

[Navy1960]

Makes you wonder if direct election of Senators is congenial with public opinion as the 17th Amendment calls for, I suspect it is, because many Americans would not wish to part with the right to select their own Senators and impart that back upon a Legislature or Agent to elect a Senator for them. The other issue I have seen here is a question by some "why have a Senate" I think James Madison rightly pointed out the reasons for having a Senate in this nation.

But you do, albeit indirectly, get to choose who your Senators are, by electing state representatives who will support your choice for who that will be.

What's happening at the core boils down to a variation on the electoral college within the states.

Not really think about this for a moment, let's say that your state rep. happens to be someone you did not vote for and happens to support a candidate for Senate along with a majority of those in the State legislature that would not otherwise garner votes from the general public in a direct election. In that regard, the Senator of that State was not elected by the people but was elected by an Agent. It's much along the same lines as say Sec. of State. , the current holder of the White House picks a Sec. of State who is then voted on , however if you did not vote for that President, you have little to do with the current Sec. of State. One other thing of note here is this, while it's fun to debate this issue the 17th will never be repealed because at its core those that seek to repeal it seek to take away the right to vote for a Senator directly and not only that , you would have to to get 2/3rds of the states to agree to it which won't happen.

Think of it this way, if the Senate was done away with all together, then if you happen live in those Red States, you will soon find yourself at the mercy of a small number of blue states or at the very least one party which happens to dominate the bigger more populated states would in turn make most of the laws for every other state, and I suspect those who founded this nation had an idea about this and thus the reason why we have a Senate.

 

[Oddball]

I assume you have now read my later post about Senators serving on average 11-13 years.

With many of them who could easily be re-elected choosing to leave voluntarily....Some to take other federal positions.

What's the percentage that gets voted out?

I don't know. In 2010, 15 Senators were either defeated or retired, or nearly half that were up for election. What I do know is that they don't serve a lifetime.

Didn't say that....What I said is that they basically had a lifetime job, if they wanted to stay there that long....The turnover rate with appointees would most likely be much higher.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Makes you wonder if direct election of Senators is congenial with public opinion as the 17th Amendment calls for, I suspect it is, because many Americans would not wish to part with the right to select their own Senators and impart that back upon a Legislature or Agent to elect a Senator for them. The other issue I have seen here is a question by some "why have a Senate" I think James Madison rightly pointed out the reasons for having a Senate in this nation.

But you do, albeit indirectly, get to choose who your Senators are, by electing state representatives who will support your choice for who that will be.

What's happening at the core boils down to a variation on the electoral college within the states.

Why do you want to limit the individual's freedom to select his own senators?

 

[Oddball]

Makes you wonder if direct election of Senators is congenial with public opinion as the 17th Amendment calls for, I suspect it is, because many Americans would not wish to part with the right to select their own Senators and impart that back upon a Legislature or Agent to elect a Senator for them. The other issue I have seen here is a question by some "why have a Senate" I think James Madison rightly pointed out the reasons for having a Senate in this nation.

But you do, albeit indirectly, get to choose who your Senators are, by electing state representatives who will support your choice for who that will be.

What's happening at the core boils down to a variation on the electoral college within the states.

Not really think about this for a moment, let's say that your state rep. happens to be someone you did not vote for and happens to support a candidate for Senate along with a majority of those in the State legislature that would not otherwise garner votes from the general public in a direct election. In that regard, the Senator of that State was not elected by the people but was elected by an Agent. It's much along the same lines as say Sec. of State. , the current holder of the White House picks a Sec. of State who is then voted on , however if you did not vote for that President, you have little to do with the current Sec. of State. One other thing of note here is this, while it's fun to debate this issue the 17th will never be repealed because at its core those that seek to repeal it seek to take away the right to vote for a Senator directly and not only that , you would have to to get 2/3rds of the states to agree to it which won't happen.

Think of it this way, if the Senate was done away with all together, then if you happen live in those Red States, you will soon find yourself at the mercy of a small number of blue states or at the very least one party which happens to dominate the bigger more populated states would in turn make most of the laws for every other state, and I suspect those who founded this nation had an idea about this and thus the reason why we have a Senate.

And if you live in a state that has more "red" districts than "blue", the city dwellers don't overrun those in the country via the strength of sheer urban population....I know, the State of Wisconsin has pretty much been run by the liberoidal douchebags in the Madison-Milwaukee axis for decades now, even though most of the land is controlled by people who live far more conservatively.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The "Why you should take care with dimwits like The Oddball Dude" Post​

1) You get your choice for Senators at the state level, when you vote for your state legislatures and Governor....Therefore, when you have the natural turnover which occurs withing the state houses, then your Senators also tend to turn over, rather than them being a reflection of how your state operated several decades ago....Then you don't have a basically imperial Senate, populated with fossils like Dole, McCain, Kennedy, Byrd, Lugar, ad nauseum, hanging around like herpes.

2) Claiming libertarians are saying that the Constitution as originally set forth was perfect is a red herring....Nobody is saying that....That said, the 17th Amendment, coupled with the 16th Amendment and the creation of the Fed -all coincidentally(?) in the same year no less- all removed three important constraints on centralizing power in a faraway capital, as the framers clearly sought to avoid, in one fell swoop.

3) And, as I pointed out earlier, federal spending and bureaucracy has swelled in the last century, from the scant couple of percent it was for the first 150 years of America's existence, to a level approaching 1/4 of all GDP...If you want to claim that this is all coincidental, I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Post: Libertarian and Randian Nitwitty pseudo-intellectual arguments are very similar to academic theories, papers, and models (weather models?), that see the world without real human interaction, and propose solutions with very little chance of succeeding in the real world.

Take the overly ridiculous, and simplistic proposition that turnovers in state government would regulate federal office terms. A natural turnover in an overly Democratic or Republican states only means a different Democrat or Republican replaces the one before them. But that's the real world and how it works, not some pie-in-the-sky dream world of some Randian Nitwit or Libertarian Doofus.

1) So The Oddball Dude fails in his first premise.

----------

2) On September 13, 1788, Congress fixed the city of New York as the seat of the new government. Congress not the framers. The statement "removed three important constraints on centralizing power in a faraway capital as the framers clearly sought to avoid..." contains a historical inaccuracy worthy of a Junior high School student who missed American History classes. New York, and Philadelphia were NOT far away places (New York - capital was moved to Philadelphia in 1790 and to Washington, D.C., in 1800).

3) Some idiocy The Oddball Dude usually includes in posts because he thinks it makes him look smaht. There is a reason they call it dope.


dD

class over

 

[Oddball]

Nobody's talking to you, dicknose.

Now, if you don't mind, some adults are having a conversation.....Go chase manifold around.

 

[Navy1960]

I do have a suggestion though, if the reason for getting rid of the 17th Amendment is based on the fact that Senators tend to park their backsides in the Senate till they gather dust, then perhaps the best way to go about this is not to seek to remove the right of people to elect their own Senators. I can suggest two methods, the first one is an easy one, stop voting for the incumbent time after time after time, only because they happen to be in the same party you are in ( take your pick on that one). The other suggestion is, rather than spin your wheels on an Amendment to the Constitution thats doomed to failure, perhaps one that seeks to add term limits to US Senators much the same as the President now has.

 

[Peach]

I do have a suggestion though, if the reason for getting rid of the 17th Amendment is based on the fact that Senators tend to park their backsides in the Senate till they gather dust, then perhaps the best way to go about this is not to seek to remove the right of people to elect their own Senators. I can suggest two methods, the first one is an easy one, stop voting for the incumbent time after time after time, only because they happen to be in the same party you are in ( take your pick on that one). The other suggestion is, rather than spin your wheels on an Amendment to the Constitution thats doomed to failure, perhaps one that seeks to add term limits to US Senators much the same as the President now has.

Rational solutions, yes. But let voters decide, term limits for Congress would add to the cost of the functioning.

 

[Oddball]

I do have a suggestion though, if the reason for getting rid of the 17th Amendment is based on the fact that Senators tend to park their backsides in the Senate till they gather dust, then perhaps the best way to go about this is not to seek to remove the right of people to elect their own Senators. I can suggest two methods, the first one is an easy one, stop voting for the incumbent time after time after time, only because they happen to be in the same party you are in ( take your pick on that one). The other suggestion is, rather than spin your wheels on an Amendment to the Constitution thats doomed to failure, perhaps one that seeks to add term limits to US Senators much the same as the President now has.

There aren't enough numbers in congress for the members to vote themselves out of office....USSC already ruled that state term limits laws don't apply to federal offices.

 

[Peach]

I do have a suggestion though, if the reason for getting rid of the 17th Amendment is based on the fact that Senators tend to park their backsides in the Senate till they gather dust, then perhaps the best way to go about this is not to seek to remove the right of people to elect their own Senators. I can suggest two methods, the first one is an easy one, stop voting for the incumbent time after time after time, only because they happen to be in the same party you are in ( take your pick on that one). The other suggestion is, rather than spin your wheels on an Amendment to the Constitution thats doomed to failure, perhaps one that seeks to add term limits to US Senators much the same as the President now has.

There aren't enough numbers in congress for the members to vote themselves out of office....USSC already ruled that state term limits laws don't apply to federal offices.

And any member of Congress can be VOTED out.

 

[Navy1960]

But you do, albeit indirectly, get to choose who your Senators are, by electing state representatives who will support your choice for who that will be.

What's happening at the core boils down to a variation on the electoral college within the states.

Not really think about this for a moment, let's say that your state rep. happens to be someone you did not vote for and happens to support a candidate for Senate along with a majority of those in the State legislature that would not otherwise garner votes from the general public in a direct election. In that regard, the Senator of that State was not elected by the people but was elected by an Agent. It's much along the same lines as say Sec. of State. , the current holder of the White House picks a Sec. of State who is then voted on , however if you did not vote for that President, you have little to do with the current Sec. of State. One other thing of note here is this, while it's fun to debate this issue the 17th will never be repealed because at its core those that seek to repeal it seek to take away the right to vote for a Senator directly and not only that , you would have to to get 2/3rds of the states to agree to it which won't happen.

Think of it this way, if the Senate was done away with all together, then if you happen live in those Red States, you will soon find yourself at the mercy of a small number of blue states or at the very least one party which happens to dominate the bigger more populated states would in turn make most of the laws for every other state, and I suspect those who founded this nation had an idea about this and thus the reason why we have a Senate.

And if you live in a state that has more "red" districts than "blue", the city dwellers don't overrun those in the country via the strength of sheer urban population....I know, the State of Wisconsin has pretty much been run by the liberoidal douchebags in the Madison-Milwaukee axis for decades now, even though most of the land is controlled by people who live far more conservatively.

Ahh, but Oddball, take away the Senate and that is exactly what will happen. While I understand that population is more concentrated in say for example Madison, etc. vs. Land owners in the rest of the state, imagine a nation where there was no Senate dominated by the large population states. States like WI. would soon find themselves adopting California Air standards because they would have only proportional representation to pass laws for them. Frankly, the only thing wrong with the Senate in the last 25 years has been an American public that simply allows Senators to return to office year after year, and then wonders why nothing is getting done. Perhaps the best place to start is in the voting booth ?

 

[Navy1960]

I do have a suggestion though, if the reason for getting rid of the 17th Amendment is based on the fact that Senators tend to park their backsides in the Senate till they gather dust, then perhaps the best way to go about this is not to seek to remove the right of people to elect their own Senators. I can suggest two methods, the first one is an easy one, stop voting for the incumbent time after time after time, only because they happen to be in the same party you are in ( take your pick on that one). The other suggestion is, rather than spin your wheels on an Amendment to the Constitution thats doomed to failure, perhaps one that seeks to add term limits to US Senators much the same as the President now has.

There aren't enough numbers in congress for the members to vote themselves out of office....USSC already ruled that state term limits laws don't apply to federal offices.

I didn't say state term limits, I said a Constitutional Amendment.

22nd Amendment

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.