Time to repeal the 17th Amendment?

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

in times prior to this, your seat on the senate was an appointment by the gov. there was never a time you were guaranteed 6 years cause you could be pulled as the gov wanted it for that particular state.

now that they're voted in they can control it in a manner we're seeing pretty abused these days. if we repeal it then we also in effect kill the need for term limits as the Gov would likely change them as they changed as well.

thoughts?
Believe it or not, Senators need to learn a lot of stuff. There are a million details about this subject and that they have to know in order to propose legislation, argue it intelligently and vote on it. What you're proposing would probably result in a lot of one term appointments. I'm not sure that's enough time for them to really get good at their jobs.
i'm proposing giving power back to the states where i do feel it belongs. i don't discount the "other stuff" that needs to be learned in order to do the job properly, but how much of that "other stuff" is *because* of what was created back when this amendment changed everything?

it would be a long process yes. but i do believe we'd be better for it in the end.
Okay, who in each state would do the chosing?
 
Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

in times prior to this, your seat on the senate was an appointment by the gov. there was never a time you were guaranteed 6 years cause you could be pulled as the gov wanted it for that particular state.

now that they're voted in they can control it in a manner we're seeing pretty abused these days. if we repeal it then we also in effect kill the need for term limits as the Gov would likely change them as they changed as well.

thoughts?
Believe it or not, Senators need to learn a lot of stuff. There are a million details about this subject and that they have to know in order to propose legislation, argue it intelligently and vote on it. What you're proposing would probably result in a lot of one term appointments. I'm not sure that's enough time for them to really get good at their jobs.
i'm proposing giving power back to the states where i do feel it belongs. i don't discount the "other stuff" that needs to be learned in order to do the job properly, but how much of that "other stuff" is *because* of what was created back when this amendment changed everything?

it would be a long process yes. but i do believe we'd be better for it in the end.
Okay, who in each state would do the chosing?

State legislatures.
 
Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

in times prior to this, your seat on the senate was an appointment by the gov. there was never a time you were guaranteed 6 years cause you could be pulled as the gov wanted it for that particular state.

now that they're voted in they can control it in a manner we're seeing pretty abused these days. if we repeal it then we also in effect kill the need for term limits as the Gov would likely change them as they changed as well.

thoughts?
Believe it or not, Senators need to learn a lot of stuff. There are a million details about this subject and that they have to know in order to propose legislation, argue it intelligently and vote on it. What you're proposing would probably result in a lot of one term appointments. I'm not sure that's enough time for them to really get good at their jobs.
i'm proposing giving power back to the states where i do feel it belongs. i don't discount the "other stuff" that needs to be learned in order to do the job properly, but how much of that "other stuff" is *because* of what was created back when this amendment changed everything?

it would be a long process yes. but i do believe we'd be better for it in the end.
This strong drive to give the power back to the states on all important legislation would result in a total mess; it would be a patchwork of conflicting laws that would confuse everyone. We have totally open, fluid boundaries between states and very high traffic between them. I don't see this working well.
 
Although repealing the Amendment seems to be consistent with a republican form of government and indirect representation doctrine, unfortunately repeal is proposed in bad faith by most Republicans and conservatives because they control most state governments - and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future - consequently, Republicans would control the Senate for the foreseeable future as well, immune from changing demographics and voting patterns favorable to Democrats.

Indeed. That is how it is supposed to work.
i'm not saying one side or the other may or may not gain "power" in the short term, but if you do the right things *for the people* that power should return *to the people*. if you're worried about too much "power" in 1 area then california is a huge question in todays system of elections. their "popular" vote is very cultural and they point it out daily as a consolation prize to losing the last election.

the fact is we need to fix things for a long term health and benefit of the overall country. the need to appeal to demographics and special interest groups on either side needs to end and i think this would be a step in that direction.
 
We need to repeal it.

Here in Florida is a great example.

We have this asshole Senator by the name of Bill Nelson. He is an embarrassment to the state and does nothing to look after the interest of Florida. Because he is a Liberal jackass he is beholding to national Left Wing causes. In every campaign he gets a ton of out of state money in exchange for selling his vote to Liberal causes like abortion, unions, illegals, welfare queens, anti gun nuts, environmental wackos, etc.
 
Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

in times prior to this, your seat on the senate was an appointment by the gov. there was never a time you were guaranteed 6 years cause you could be pulled as the gov wanted it for that particular state.

now that they're voted in they can control it in a manner we're seeing pretty abused these days. if we repeal it then we also in effect kill the need for term limits as the Gov would likely change them as they changed as well.

thoughts?
Believe it or not, Senators need to learn a lot of stuff. There are a million details about this subject and that they have to know in order to propose legislation, argue it intelligently and vote on it. What you're proposing would probably result in a lot of one term appointments. I'm not sure that's enough time for them to really get good at their jobs.
i'm proposing giving power back to the states where i do feel it belongs. i don't discount the "other stuff" that needs to be learned in order to do the job properly, but how much of that "other stuff" is *because* of what was created back when this amendment changed everything?

it would be a long process yes. but i do believe we'd be better for it in the end.
This strong drive to give the power back to the states on all important legislation would result in a total mess; it would be a patchwork of conflicting laws that would confuse everyone. We have totally open, fluid boundaries between states and very high traffic between them. I don't see this working well.
can you be more specific on how it would result in a mess? again i'm more concerned about long term than short. short term we seem hellbent on killing each other in slow moving stupidity of counter moves that are bringing us down as a whole. if we don't stop that we're literally killing our country.

something has to give. "business as usual" isn't doing it anymore.
 
Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

in times prior to this, your seat on the senate was an appointment by the gov. there was never a time you were guaranteed 6 years cause you could be pulled as the gov wanted it for that particular state.

now that they're voted in they can control it in a manner we're seeing pretty abused these days. if we repeal it then we also in effect kill the need for term limits as the Gov would likely change them as they changed as well.

thoughts?
Believe it or not, Senators need to learn a lot of stuff. There are a million details about this subject and that they have to know in order to propose legislation, argue it intelligently and vote on it. What you're proposing would probably result in a lot of one term appointments. I'm not sure that's enough time for them to really get good at their jobs.
i'm proposing giving power back to the states where i do feel it belongs. i don't discount the "other stuff" that needs to be learned in order to do the job properly, but how much of that "other stuff" is *because* of what was created back when this amendment changed everything?

it would be a long process yes. but i do believe we'd be better for it in the end.
Okay, who in each state would do the chosing?

State legislatures.
And who would decide the candidates to chose from? Would the legislature just put up whomever they wanted, or would the people primary a few "finalists" ?
 
Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

in times prior to this, your seat on the senate was an appointment by the gov. there was never a time you were guaranteed 6 years cause you could be pulled as the gov wanted it for that particular state.

now that they're voted in they can control it in a manner we're seeing pretty abused these days. if we repeal it then we also in effect kill the need for term limits as the Gov would likely change them as they changed as well.

thoughts?
Believe it or not, Senators need to learn a lot of stuff. There are a million details about this subject and that they have to know in order to propose legislation, argue it intelligently and vote on it. What you're proposing would probably result in a lot of one term appointments. I'm not sure that's enough time for them to really get good at their jobs.
i'm proposing giving power back to the states where i do feel it belongs. i don't discount the "other stuff" that needs to be learned in order to do the job properly, but how much of that "other stuff" is *because* of what was created back when this amendment changed everything?

it would be a long process yes. but i do believe we'd be better for it in the end.
Okay, who in each state would do the chosing?

State legislatures.
And who would decide the candidates to chose from? Would the legislature just put up whomever they wanted, or would the people primary a few "finalists" ?

State legislatures.
 
Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

in times prior to this, your seat on the senate was an appointment by the gov. there was never a time you were guaranteed 6 years cause you could be pulled as the gov wanted it for that particular state.

now that they're voted in they can control it in a manner we're seeing pretty abused these days. if we repeal it then we also in effect kill the need for term limits as the Gov would likely change them as they changed as well.

thoughts?
Believe it or not, Senators need to learn a lot of stuff. There are a million details about this subject and that they have to know in order to propose legislation, argue it intelligently and vote on it. What you're proposing would probably result in a lot of one term appointments. I'm not sure that's enough time for them to really get good at their jobs.
i'm proposing giving power back to the states where i do feel it belongs. i don't discount the "other stuff" that needs to be learned in order to do the job properly, but how much of that "other stuff" is *because* of what was created back when this amendment changed everything?

it would be a long process yes. but i do believe we'd be better for it in the end.
Okay, who in each state would do the chosing?

State legislatures.
And who would decide the candidates to chose from? Would the legislature just put up whomever they wanted, or would the people primary a few "finalists" ?
that's what we're talking over now and i hope to learn. no i don't understand it all but many intelligent people in here on both sides likely do better than i. how would it work? what are the hurdles? how would this change life as we know it for just about everyone in the country raised on the "new" way? (if early 1900's is new anymore).

hoping we can all talk it over w/o attacks. don't expect it to last but so far so good. thank you for your input whether i agree or not. all views are welcome as far as i'm concerned, esp if we share the goal of ending the madness we have today.
 
Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

in times prior to this, your seat on the senate was an appointment by the gov. there was never a time you were guaranteed 6 years cause you could be pulled as the gov wanted it for that particular state.

now that they're voted in they can control it in a manner we're seeing pretty abused these days. if we repeal it then we also in effect kill the need for term limits as the Gov would likely change them as they changed as well.

thoughts?
Believe it or not, Senators need to learn a lot of stuff. There are a million details about this subject and that they have to know in order to propose legislation, argue it intelligently and vote on it. What you're proposing would probably result in a lot of one term appointments. I'm not sure that's enough time for them to really get good at their jobs.
i'm proposing giving power back to the states where i do feel it belongs. i don't discount the "other stuff" that needs to be learned in order to do the job properly, but how much of that "other stuff" is *because* of what was created back when this amendment changed everything?

it would be a long process yes. but i do believe we'd be better for it in the end.
This strong drive to give the power back to the states on all important legislation would result in a total mess; it would be a patchwork of conflicting laws that would confuse everyone. We have totally open, fluid boundaries between states and very high traffic between them. I don't see this working well.
can you be more specific on how it would result in a mess? again i'm more concerned about long term than short. short term we seem hellbent on killing each other in slow moving stupidity of counter moves that are bringing us down as a whole. if we don't stop that we're literally killing our country.

something has to give. "business as usual" isn't doing it anymore.
I see your concern and I don't disagree with it.
Giving the power back to the states to chose our Congressional representatives is just throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
There has to be a way to resolve the gridlock in D.C. Perhaps continuing to make our dissatisfaction with it known will make a difference.
 
Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

in times prior to this, your seat on the senate was an appointment by the gov. there was never a time you were guaranteed 6 years cause you could be pulled as the gov wanted it for that particular state.

now that they're voted in they can control it in a manner we're seeing pretty abused these days. if we repeal it then we also in effect kill the need for term limits as the Gov would likely change them as they changed as well.

thoughts?
Believe it or not, Senators need to learn a lot of stuff. There are a million details about this subject and that they have to know in order to propose legislation, argue it intelligently and vote on it. What you're proposing would probably result in a lot of one term appointments. I'm not sure that's enough time for them to really get good at their jobs.
i'm proposing giving power back to the states where i do feel it belongs. i don't discount the "other stuff" that needs to be learned in order to do the job properly, but how much of that "other stuff" is *because* of what was created back when this amendment changed everything?

it would be a long process yes. but i do believe we'd be better for it in the end.
This strong drive to give the power back to the states on all important legislation would result in a total mess; it would be a patchwork of conflicting laws that would confuse everyone. We have totally open, fluid boundaries between states and very high traffic between them. I don't see this working well.
can you be more specific on how it would result in a mess? again i'm more concerned about long term than short. short term we seem hellbent on killing each other in slow moving stupidity of counter moves that are bringing us down as a whole. if we don't stop that we're literally killing our country.

something has to give. "business as usual" isn't doing it anymore.
I see your concern and I don't disagree with it.
Giving the power back to the states to chose our Congressional representatives is just throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
There has to be a way to resolve the gridlock in D.C. Perhaps continuing to make our dissatisfaction with it known will make a difference.
what were they trying to resolve when they created the 17th amendment? maybe we don't need to repeal it in as much as find a solution for todays issues we all see but don't know what to do about.

to do *any* of this we all need to stop the attacks that has become todays politics. that will be a hard one to overcome.
 
Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

in times prior to this, your seat on the senate was an appointment by the gov. there was never a time you were guaranteed 6 years cause you could be pulled as the gov wanted it for that particular state.

now that they're voted in they can control it in a manner we're seeing pretty abused these days. if we repeal it then we also in effect kill the need for term limits as the Gov would likely change them as they changed as well.

thoughts?


I've advocated it for years.

The problem was the system before got corrupted by people buying their way into senate seats. Now with every penny digitized and tracked, it would be much more difficult for state legislatures to be bribed into sending a piece of shit to DC.


.
 
I think, Iceberg, the gridlock is a result of fighting between the two major parties more than disagreement between states. I don't see how giving the power back to state legislatures would solve that problem.
 
Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

in times prior to this, your seat on the senate was an appointment by the gov. there was never a time you were guaranteed 6 years cause you could be pulled as the gov wanted it for that particular state.

now that they're voted in they can control it in a manner we're seeing pretty abused these days. if we repeal it then we also in effect kill the need for term limits as the Gov would likely change them as they changed as well.

thoughts?

(not changing my original post but adding that i've been corrected on how they were appointed - see thread)
Our Founding Fathers did a better job; we know better now.
 
Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

in times prior to this, your seat on the senate was an appointment by the gov. there was never a time you were guaranteed 6 years cause you could be pulled as the gov wanted it for that particular state.

now that they're voted in they can control it in a manner we're seeing pretty abused these days. if we repeal it then we also in effect kill the need for term limits as the Gov would likely change them as they changed as well.

thoughts?


I've advocated it for years.

The problem was the system before got corrupted by people buying their way into senate seats. Now with every penny digitized and tracked, it would be much more difficult for state legislatures to be bribed into sending a piece of shit to DC.


.
Why don't we just focus on that problem instead of handing our decisions over to another bunch of partisans?
 
I think, Iceberg, the gridlock is a result of fighting between the two major parties more than disagreement between states. I don't see how giving the power back to state legislatures would solve that problem.
how much of this is driven by people who've been a senator for so long now? if we have someone who's only bitching at people 24x7 while a senator from what i understand, they can be removed.

the fighting is a result of a lot of games and wordsmithing on both sides. if people know doing that will end up in being out of office, then i would *think* it would slow it down quite a bit.
 
We need to repeal it.

Here in Florida is a great example.

We have this asshole Senator by the name of Bill Nelson. He is an embarrassment to the state and does nothing to look after the interest of Florida. Because he is a Liberal jackass he is beholding to national Left Wing causes. In every campaign he gets a ton of out of state money in exchange for selling his vote to Liberal causes like abortion, unions, illegals, welfare queens, anti gun nuts, environmental wackos, etc.

If the 17th amendment was repealed, it would seriously curtail the power of special interests groups. We wouldn’t see senators selling their soul for campaign money because there wouldn’t need to be a campaign. To buy Senators you’d have to pay off entire legislatures to get the guys you want in each state.
 
Although repealing the Amendment seems to be consistent with a republican form of government and indirect representation doctrine, unfortunately repeal is proposed in bad faith by most Republicans and conservatives because they control most state governments - and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future - consequently, Republicans would control the Senate for the foreseeable future as well, immune from changing demographics and voting patterns favorable to Democrats.

Not to forget that 17th Amendment was proposed by the Congress when Democrats had 230-162 majority.
 
Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

in times prior to this, your seat on the senate was an appointment by the gov. there was never a time you were guaranteed 6 years cause you could be pulled as the gov wanted it for that particular state.

now that they're voted in they can control it in a manner we're seeing pretty abused these days. if we repeal it then we also in effect kill the need for term limits as the Gov would likely change them as they changed as well.

thoughts?
Believe it or not, Senators need to learn a lot of stuff. There are a million details about this subject and that they have to know in order to propose legislation, argue it intelligently and vote on it. What you're proposing would probably result in a lot of one term appointments. I'm not sure that's enough time for them to really get good at their jobs.
i'm proposing giving power back to the states where i do feel it belongs. i don't discount the "other stuff" that needs to be learned in order to do the job properly, but how much of that "other stuff" is *because* of what was created back when this amendment changed everything?

it would be a long process yes. but i do believe we'd be better for it in the end.
This strong drive to give the power back to the states on all important legislation would result in a total mess; it would be a patchwork of conflicting laws that would confuse everyone. We have totally open, fluid boundaries between states and very high traffic between them. I don't see this working well.
can you be more specific on how it would result in a mess? again i'm more concerned about long term than short. short term we seem hellbent on killing each other in slow moving stupidity of counter moves that are bringing us down as a whole. if we don't stop that we're literally killing our country.

something has to give. "business as usual" isn't doing it anymore.
I see your concern and I don't disagree with it.
Giving the power back to the states to chose our Congressional representatives is just throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
There has to be a way to resolve the gridlock in D.C. Perhaps continuing to make our dissatisfaction with it known will make a difference.

That’s just it, they wouldn’t be picking our Congressional representatives. They would be picking representatives of the state government.

Our congressional representatives would still be chosen by us in each house seat
 
James Madison made the following argument for electing by state legislatures in Federalist Paper No. 62:

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.

In other words, Madison was saying this method reinforced the authority of the states over the federal government.

So why did our country feel it necessary to change that?

First, it was widely believed that state legislators were easily bought. There were several cases of such corruption which fed into this belief. And one only has to pick up a local newspaper to see this is still true today.

Second, just ponder how often the US Senate is deadlocked today by partisans. The same was true of state legislatures.

Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections were deadlocked, in 20 different states; in one extreme example, a Senate seat for Delaware went unfilled from 1899 until 1903. The business of holding elections also caused great disruption in the state legislatures, with a full third of the Oregon House of Representatives choosing not to swear the oath of office in 1897 due to a dispute over an open Senate seat. The result was that the legislature was unable to pass legislation that year.

By the time the 17th amendment was a viable proposal, 33 states had already changed their election laws so that their Senators were chosen by popular vote. 31 state legislatures had passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional amendment allowing popular vote, and ten Republicans who opposed an amendment lost their seats. 27 states were calling for a constitutional convention, with 31 being the threshold.


But there is yet more to this than meets the eye. Much more.

You see, in the past voter district lines were based on geography, not population. Voting districts were given equal geographic size, the result of which was rural votes were seriously overweighted. There might be 20 times as many people in an urban voting district, but they were given one representative in the state legislature, and the rural district was also given one representative in the state legislature even though it had much fewer people in it.

In such a scheme, one can see how the votes of rural voters, who tend to be conservatives, greatly outweigh the votes of urban voters (who tend to be liberal).

Three Supreme Court decisions changed all that. These are known as the "one man, one vote" decisions. District lines are now based on population.


But...US Senate districts (the states) are still based on geography. And there are still more rural states than heavily urbanized states.

You can see where this is going.

This means, on the Senate district level, rural states' votes continue to be more heavily weighted than urbanized states with the result that 27 state legislatures are Republican controlled, while only 17 state legislatures are Democratic controlled. The rest are split.

Consequently, the immediate result of repealing the 17th amendment would result in 54 GOP Senators, 34 Democratic Senators, with the rest being a tossup. The Republicans would gain a permanent majority in the Senate.

I believe that is the real purpose of the drive to repeal the 17th amendment, with the restoring-states-authority-over-the-federal-government argument just the thinnest of smokescreens.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top