Time to repeal the 17th Amendment?

[Darkwind]

I don't support repealing the 17th amendment. I hold this opinion primarily because the source of information regarding our state representatives is much more limited than it is to our U.S. Senators. Thus the only ones I see benefitting from the repeal would be the political parties.

can you provide a few anecdotes, for examples?

Just 37% of Americans can name their Representative | Haven Insights

If only 37% know the name of their U.S. representative, I'd have to guess those who can name their state representative is practically nil.

Here is my U.S. representative, Andy Biggs (Arizona's 5th congressional district):

​

​

yeah, Mine is the liar Tom Marino.

 

[g5000]

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.

People need to vote.

Only 50% of the population voted in 2016.

If everyone who could legally vote in America actually did vote, we would have a very different government and world.

It's not enough for you to vote anymore. You need to get everyone you know to vote. You need to help people to vote. Fill your car and take people to the polling place on election day. Help people get a mail in ballot if they want to vote that way. Help people to get registered to vote.

Thousands of people have died so that we could vote. Personally, I don't take that lightly. I won't disrespect their sacrifice for me and everyone else by not voting. Especially women. We women had to go through hell to get the right to vote. Some women died. Others lost their children and families. Some were thrown in jail. Women didn't have a right to vote when my grandmothers were born. Personally, I just can't imagine such a thing. I won't disrespect their sacrifice.

The best thing anyone can do for our nation and democracy is to vote and get as many other people as they can to vote too.

i do agree we need to be more involved in our political process, sure. but i think many are jaded and/or feel the votes simply don't matter. trump vs. clinton? were you voting FOR someone or AGAINST the other?

mine was more against than for at the time. but so far so good. he's got his fleas to be sure, but he's not status quo OF WHICH i am tired of.

Trump is worse than the status quo. He has set a new record in deficit spending, and he has added thousands of acres to TH3 SWVMP.

As long as people keep voting for "the lesser of two evils", we will keep getting more and more evil choices.

 

[g5000]

I don't support repealing the 17th amendment. I hold this opinion primarily because the source of information regarding our state representatives is much more limited than it is to our U.S. Senators. Thus the only ones I see benefitting from the repeal would be the political parties.

can you provide a few anecdotes, for examples?

Just 37% of Americans can name their Representative | Haven Insights

If only 37% know the name of their U.S. representative, I'd have to guess those who can name their state representative is practically nil.

Here is my U.S. representative, Andy Biggs (Arizona's 5th congressional district):

​

​

You know what's worse than Americans not knowing who their reps are?

Not knowing how much they paid in income tax.

I wish someone would do a survey to see how many Americans know how much income tax they paid last year.

When I do informal surveys, I've yet to encounter a single individual who knows how much they paid. You probably don't know how much you paid, and neither does anyone reading this.

They can tell me how much their refund was, or how big a check they had to write to make up the difference between their withholding and what they owed, but not one has ever been able to tell me the total tax they paid.

And that allows more corruption than any other blind spot in the American political landscape.

 

[Darkwind]

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)

Conservatives are constantly saying they are the only ones who love our nation and constitution.

Yet they're the ones who have called for changing and or repealing things in that constitution.

You want to change the first amendment. You want to repeal the 13th, 14th, 19th and now the 17th. You also want to add an amendment to take reproductive freedom from women and cause women who's pregnancy has gone wrong to die.

If you love that document and believe in what it says, why do you people keep wanting to repeal parts of it?

I have to say, that is quite the rant. Little of it is true, but still...

No conservative wants to repeal the First. Only an idiot would want to take away a fundamental right. That is what the Bill of Rights are. They are natural rights. The others not as much but most very important.

I'd be happy with repealing the 16th and 17th, as both do more harm than good.

 

[g5000]

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)

Conservatives are constantly saying they are the only ones who love our nation and constitution.

Yet they're the ones who have called for changing and or repealing things in that constitution.

You want to change the first amendment. You want to repeal the 13th, 14th, 19th and now the 17th. You also want to add an amendment to take reproductive freedom from women and cause women who's pregnancy has gone wrong to die.

If you love that document and believe in what it says, why do you people keep wanting to repeal parts of it?

I have to say, that is quite the rant. Little of it is true, but still...

No conservative wants to repeal the First. Only an idiot would want to take away a fundamental right. That is what the Bill of Rights are. They are natural rights. The others not as much but most very important.

I'd be happy with repealing the 16th and 17th, as both do more harm than good.

I've seen plenty of pseudocons claiming Islam is not a religion, and therefore not protected by the First Amendment. I've seen it argued that our Founders intended only Christianity to be protected by the First Amendment.

 

[Darkwind]

I also have to add, it is the left who are actually lobbying to have their rights reduced. That one always blows Me away.

 

[iceberg]

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)

Conservatives are constantly saying they are the only ones who love our nation and constitution.

Yet they're the ones who have called for changing and or repealing things in that constitution.

You want to change the first amendment. You want to repeal the 13th, 14th, 19th and now the 17th. You also want to add an amendment to take reproductive freedom from women and cause women who's pregnancy has gone wrong to die.

If you love that document and believe in what it says, why do you people keep wanting to repeal parts of it?

I have to say, that is quite the rant. Little of it is true, but still...

No conservative wants to repeal the First. Only an idiot would want to take away a fundamental right. That is what the Bill of Rights are. They are natural rights. The others not as much but most very important.

I'd be happy with repealing the 16th and 17th, as both do more harm than good.

I've seen plenty of pseudocons claiming Islam is not a religion, and therefore not protected by the First Amendment. I've seen it argued that our Founders intended only Christianity to be protected by the First Amendment.

the trap here is to think *all* feel this way. BOTH SIDES have a very annoying habit of taking the worst out of 1 side and pretending the represent ALL of that side.

 

[Dana7360]

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)

Conservatives are constantly saying they are the only ones who love our nation and constitution.

Yet they're the ones who have called for changing and or repealing things in that constitution.

You want to change the first amendment. You want to repeal the 13th, 14th, 19th and now the 17th. You also want to add an amendment to take reproductive freedom from women and cause women who's pregnancy has gone wrong to die.

If you love that document and believe in what it says, why do you people keep wanting to repeal parts of it?

i would think the fact we *can* amend it and/or change it by "due process" is a sign of utilizing it. saying the right is abusing it by following processes in order to change it OF WHICH both sides have done over the course of our history is strange to me.

i don't want to change or repeal the 1st amendment. from what i understand however, the left wants to do away with the 2nd. funny you leave that out in your rush to include all you can in a singular direction. if the LEFT loves it so much, why repeal that? sounds stupid in that light doesn't it? your post came off just as bad.

as for your reproductive freedom, *I* don't care what you do so if you're addressing *me* then you may want to know *my* views before we start stereotyping.

I never said the right was abusing anything.

It's a horrible idea to lie about what I said.

I pointed out that the right says they are the only ones who love the constitution yet you all want to change it. A lot. Then I listed how you all want to change it. You can't refute that so you lie about what I said. Typical.

If you love it why do you want to change it?

Plus, good luck changing it. You'll need two thirds of both the House and Senate to pass it then three quarters of the states to pass it to change the constitution. Usually there's a time limit for the states to pass it. If three quarters of the states have not passed it, it doesn't become an amendment.

Good luck with that.

If you think that the people of our nation are going to vote to take our right to vote for our senators away from us, you don't know the American people. We want to vote for our senators we don't want politicians in back rooms making deals to put their own senators in the Senate to vote the way the rich want. It's bad enough now, handing our vote for senate over to politicians will be much worse.

It's a horrible idea in my opinion and I'm sure that most Americans will agree with me.

Why do you want a big government nanny making your decisions for you on who will be your senator? Why don't you want a say in who represents you in the Senate in DC? And why do you believe Americans want that same big government nanny voting for us?

 

[iceberg]

big gov.

there you go making stupid assumptions vs asking questions.

night johnboy.

 

[Oddball]

Conservatives are constantly saying they are the only ones who love our nation and constitution.

Yet they're the ones who have called for changing and or repealing things in that constitution.

You want to change the first amendment. You want to repeal the 13th, 14th, 19th and now the 17th. You also want to add an amendment to take reproductive freedom from women and cause women who's pregnancy has gone wrong to die.

If you love that document and believe in what it says, why do you people keep wanting to repeal parts of it?

Appointment of Senators is in the Constitution...The 17th Amendment changed that.

Why do you hate the Constitution?....Why do you keep wanting to repeal it?

 

[danielpalos]

Conservatives are constantly saying they are the only ones who love our nation and constitution.

Yet they're the ones who have called for changing and or repealing things in that constitution.

You want to change the first amendment. You want to repeal the 13th, 14th, 19th and now the 17th. You also want to add an amendment to take reproductive freedom from women and cause women who's pregnancy has gone wrong to die.

If you love that document and believe in what it says, why do you people keep wanting to repeal parts of it?

Appointment of Senators is in the Constitution...The 17th Amendment changed that.

Why do you hate the Constitution?....Why do you keep wanting to repeal it?

"we learned our lesson".

 

[JoeB131]

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?

More Democracy is always better than less democracy.

The problem with you strict constructionists who think the last good ideas were had by slave rapists who shit in chamber pots is that they were a bunch of rich guys who didn't trust the people.

The vote should only be held by property-owning white males, Senators were appointed by governors and the President was selected by either the EC or Congress.

Now, I do agree, there should be mandatory retirement of public officials after the age of 70... something else the Founding Slave Rapists didn't think of because when they were around, most people died at age 50.

Here's the real problem, though. We still don't have enough Democracy. Due to Gerrymandering, only about 40 Congressional seats are in play this year.

Only 9 Senate Seats are in play out of 35 that are up. and that is considered a high amount, since two of them are only in play because of retirements.

And thanks to the Electoral Abomination, Presidential Elections are really only decided by about 10 states out of 50.

 

[longknife]

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.

Senators have big staffs to do all the work for them. Just watching the hearings should show you that. They couldn't say anything without checking first with one of the staff members sitting behind them.

As to the 17th. I agree that it should be repealed. I also oppose the current method of voting for the chief executive and should be returned to the original intent. Article Two of the Constitution @ Article Two of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

 

[iceberg]

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?

More Democracy is always better than less democracy.

The problem with you strict constructionists who think the last good ideas were had by slave rapists who shit in chamber pots is that they were a bunch of rich guys who didn't trust the people.

The vote should only be held by property-owning white males, Senators were appointed by governors and the President was selected by either the EC or Congress.

Now, I do agree, there should be mandatory retirement of public officials after the age of 70... something else the Founding Slave Rapists didn't think of because when they were around, most people died at age 50.

Here's the real problem, though. We still don't have enough Democracy. Due to Gerrymandering, only about 40 Congressional seats are in play this year.

Only 9 Senate Seats are in play out of 35 that are up. and that is considered a high amount, since two of them are only in play because of retirements.

And thanks to the Electoral Abomination, Presidential Elections are really only decided by about 10 states out of 50.

i'm asking a question to learn - i've said so many times. so instead of trying to understand where i'm coming from, you lob in the bullshit "the problem with you strict constitutionalists..." and only prove you 200% missed my intent with this post. you then add bullshit on top of it by accusing everyone of slave raping and the like. could you be a bit more pathetic?

well, YOU could.

i'm just going back to not giving a shit because you can't talk like an adult, proven yet once again.

 

[ptbw forever]

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.

Democrats don’t have a future.

You are the modern day know nothing party.

 

[Oddball]

More Democracy is always better than less democracy.

The problem with you strict constructionists who think the last good ideas were had by slave rapists who shit in chamber pots is that they were a bunch of rich guys who didn't trust the people.

The vote should only be held by property-owning white males, Senators were appointed by governors and the President was selected by either the EC or Congress.

Now, I do agree, there should be mandatory retirement of public officials after the age of 70... something else the Founding Slave Rapists didn't think of because when they were around, most people died at age 50.

Here's the real problem, though. We still don't have enough Democracy. Due to Gerrymandering, only about 40 Congressional seats are in play this year.

Only 9 Senate Seats are in play out of 35 that are up. and that is considered a high amount, since two of them are only in play because of retirements.

And thanks to the Electoral Abomination, Presidential Elections are really only decided by about 10 states out of 50.

Oh, so you're in favor of debasing the charter according to your criteria, while sanctimoniously decrying the changes that you don't like.

How pathetic.

 

[JWBooth]

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?

More Democracy is always better than less democracy.

The problem with you strict constructionists who think the last good ideas were had by slave rapists who shit in chamber pots is that they were a bunch of rich guys who didn't trust the people.

The vote should only be held by property-owning white males, Senators were appointed by governors and the President was selected by either the EC or Congress.

Now, I do agree, there should be mandatory retirement of public officials after the age of 70... something else the Founding Slave Rapists didn't think of because when they were around, most people died at age 50.

Here's the real problem, though. We still don't have enough Democracy. Due to Gerrymandering, only about 40 Congressional seats are in play this year.

Only 9 Senate Seats are in play out of 35 that are up. and that is considered a high amount, since two of them are only in play because of retirements.

And thanks to the Electoral Abomination, Presidential Elections are really only decided by about 10 states out of 50.

So rather than be part of a slow rolling coup, why not convince enough people to change it properly?
It was done in those amendments I oppose and while I do oppose them, I recognise them in fact. You and those like you don't seem able to do the same.

 

[JoeB131]

i'm asking a question to learn - i've said so many times. so instead of trying to understand where i'm coming from, you lob in the bullshit "the problem with you strict constitutionalists..." and only prove you 200% missed my intent with this post. you then add bullshit on top of it by accusing everyone of slave raping and the like. could you be a bit more pathetic?

Oh, please, guy, when you Founding Slave Owner Fetishists start babbling, it's usually because if we had true democracy, you guys wouldn't get anything you wanted.

You all are incapable of learning.

The 17th Amendment was a wonderful idea, because usually appointments to the Senate were rife with corruption, and people got fed up with it.

Remember when Blago had the ability to appoint Obama's replacement, and he went about trying to sell it to the highest bidder? That's what you guys want to go back to. No fucking thanks.

 

[JoeB131]

So rather than be part of a slow rolling coup, why not convince enough people to change it properly?
It was done in those amendments I oppose and while I do oppose them, I recognise them in fact. You and those like you don't seem able to do the same.

Nope, when you have a crazy person with his finger on the nuke, sending kids to concentration camps, you don't wait for a process to take him out

 

[JWBooth]

So rather than be part of a slow rolling coup, why not convince enough people to change it properly?
It was done in those amendments I oppose and while I do oppose them, I recognise them in fact. You and those like you don't seem able to do the same.

Nope, when you have a crazy person with his finger on the nuke, sending kids to concentration camps, you don't wait for a process to take him out

Concentration camps? That kinda takes you out of the running for calling somebody else crazy.