Posted on 11/15/2015 9:37:56 AM PST by YankeeinOkieville
As am I. I cannot see the governing body of Texas (Republican as it is) selecting Ted Cruz to represent the state.
While I agree that the 17th completely changed the Founders’ idea that the Senate represented the states (that’s why treaties are ratified by only the Senate) as I understand it, in 1913 it was believed that the rich and powerful within each state could easily buy the votes of then low-paid state legislators. The people of the time could not imagine that a majority of voters in a state could be bought off or influenced by big money to vote for a particular Senator. This was of course before radio and television ads would flood people’s homes for months before an election—paid for of course by big money.
Right now there would be about 60+ republican senators in the Senate as that many states are Republican controlled.
They were meant to be representatives of states’ interests against federal encroachment on those interests. The 17th amendment eviscerated states rights, oddly enough with the states’ approval!
I agree wholeheartedly with your observations. That leads to the wondering if Ted would’ve ran - or been drafted to run - for Representative from the great state of Texas.
I wonder also, prior to the 17th, how many Representatives went on to run for President and if any won. (I know I could look it up for myself, but I’m betting with the brain trust we have here, I may not have to ;-) )
The other issue is campaign financing. Riding ourselves of the 17th would rid us of expensive campaigns. It would be also make it much more difficult for Senators to accumulate massive amounts of wealth off of the campaign finance system.
The other issue is campaign financing. Riding ourselves of the 17th would rid us of expensive campaigns. It would be also make it much more difficult for Senators to accumulate massive amounts of wealth off of the campaign finance system.
However, if the 17th Amendment hadn't been passed then it might not be the case right now.
If the voters of a state knew that whoever controlled the state houses would determine who their senators were, then they might vote differently. Just like we conservatives are cajoled into voting for inferior Republican candidates just so we can control who ends up in the Supreme Court, Democrats would be cajoled into supporting undesirable candidates to make sure that the state's Senators were Democrat.
Also, the real problem is not who chooses the Senators. The real problem is that the Feds are the only branch of government that can run deficits indefinitely. Over time our state governments have willingly ceded powers over to the Fed because they can't afford to pay for all the goodies their constituencies beg for. The states let the feds write the checks and then follow the mandates set by the feds.
There is some grumbling, but no real change.
Remember it was individuals that fought for Bundy's rights not the state of Nevada.
Wasn't it the state political machine in Mississippi that gave it back to Cochran when the people tried to get rid of him? That would seem a vote for the 17th.
Hopefully, if the good people of the Magnolia State paid attention to who all was involved in this unscrupulous stunt and do a little house cleaning of their own.
CCg nails it. The intent of a 2 house congress is that the several States have representation. This is what a federal constitutional republic is all about. 17A effectively DESTROYED the Republic.
About 4 years ago I was in a Big Lots and saw $3 book by Larry Sabado that proposed modifications to the U.S. Constitution. I figured I would be open-minded and see what Larry was proposing... and when I got to the part where he proposed that Article 1, Section 3 be modified to give more populous states more seats in the Senate, with senators being elected by popular vote, I closed the book and heaved it across the room at the wall.
Imbecile. ZERO grasp upon the original intent of the Senate. ZERO grasp of how critically important the decentralization of power is to a federal republic.
Voters were once able to directly influence how their statehouse acted and who it might send to Washington D.C. It put the power directly in the voting district, where if a state representative refused the will of the people that elected him, that representative was, minimally, removed from office. At worst, his home could be burned to the ground by an angry mob as they found the nearest tree to hang him from by the neck with a rope.
That is how it “should be”, IMHO.
Republican =/= conservative. If it were up to the state of Oklahoma, we may have had a Republican senator selected in 2004 but it would've been Kirk Humphries instead of the conservative Dr. Coburn.
ping
Amendment 17 changed the Senate into a more-exclusive, more-expensive version of the House.
I am in favor of repealing the 17th amendment.
Yeah, let the socialist state bosses of pork and regulations choose the senators. They’ll finish crushing what little remains of the true private sector.
The 17th amendment has made it much more probable that our elected Senators become influenced from movements out of their state.
Since the probability of repealing the 17th amendment is near zero, time spent even discussing the subject is a waste.
That is how it “should beâ€, IMHO.
Really hoping that is hyperbole.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.