Should We Amend the Constitution to Make Supreme Court Justice Elected Every Four Years?

[BackAgain]

Actually, it was a very restricted “peoples voice”

Only white, male landowners were allowed to vote.

A not particularly relevant historical comment. It is already known and has nothing at all to do with the point. Those days are gone. And they are gone via a process invisioned by the Constitution, itself. I’m glad of it.

What I’m not glad about is the alteration of how Senators are selected. It’s that very Constitutional Amendment which I would like to see repealed.

 

[postman]

A not particularly relevant historical comment. It is already known and has nothing at all to do with the point. Those days are fine. And they are fine via a process incisions by the Constitution, itself. I’m glad of it.

What I’m not glad about is the alteration of how Senators are selected. It’s that very Constitutional Amendment which I would like to see repealed.

Along with repeal of the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, 26th? Right?

 

[BackAgain]

Along with repeal of the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, 26th? Right?

No. As usual, you’re wrong. Why be so petulant just because you can’t intelligently discuss the actual topic? I’d be ok with getting rid of the 16th, though.

But maybe you can at least try to stay focused on the topic under actual discussion?

 

[gmeyers1944]

Sorry

I would rather vote for my Senator than have him appointed in some backroom deal

If it were not for the 17th Amendment, each Senator would still represent their state, which is what they were intended to do. That is why each state has 2 senators. The House of Representatives is to represent the citizens.

 

[rightwinger]

If it were not for the 17th Amendment, each Senator would still represent their state, which is what they were intended to do. That is why each state has 2 senators. The House of Representatives is to represent the citizens.

The Senator represents the PEOPLE of the state

 

[postman]

If it were not for the 17th Amendment, each Senator would still represent their state, which is what they were intended to do. That is why each state has 2 senators. The House of Representatives is to represent the citizens.

Actually senators were selected to represent their party, not their people.

 

[postman]

The Senator represents the PEOPLE of the state

Better said, a senator represents the majority of the PEOPLE in the state.

They used to represent the majority of the party that controls their legislature.

Another important factor is people elect their legislature, to best serve them through the functions of the state, that they control. That's a far cry from representing the state at the federal level.
Exampled by a state with a large military base, or military industrial complex the state legislature has little control over, but the federal senate holds full sway.

 

[Markle]

Actually there was a great need. As what it did was give the smallest of states, the same representation as the largest of states. Wyoming and Alaska, have the same voting power as California and New York. It gave the 7 smallest states, greater power than the 6 largest states.

No, it gives the smaller states the SAME power as the largest states.

 

[Markle]

The Senator represents the PEOPLE of the state

Then who represents the states?

 

[rightwinger]

Then who represents the states?

Nobody

States are the PEOPLE

 

[gmeyers1944]

The Senator represents the PEOPLE of the state

That is not how it was supposed to be. They were supposed to represent the state at the federal level.