WOULD TRUMP GET NOMINATED B4 THE 16th AMENDMENT?

[DIRTYSECRET]

Don't know if it's the 16th amendment that did it but there was a time when we could only vote for our congressman. The party nominated Senators and Presidential not-so-wannabes. You look at the Senators that keep getting reelected and like most of us it's a joke. Under the old rules we would have gotten Jeb. Maybe not. Walker would have been good. Trump would have never seen the light of day.

[humblegunner]

[NorthMountain]

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

[DuncanWaring]

16th Amendment - Income Tax.

17th Amendment - Direct election of senators.

[Aevery_Freeman]

Seventeenth - allowed Hollywood to pick our Senators.

We, as states, vote for electors to represent us in the electoral college.

The Sixteenth was the blood-sucking amendment that allowed the government to treat us as share-croppers in our own nation - Income Tax.

[Reily]

Please go back and read the Constitution !
Then re-post!

[TheZMan]

Beat me to it, and far more elegantly.

[ptsal]

The 17th amendment is also a rotten relic.

[Avalon Memories]

The 16th Amendment gave us income taxes. The 17th gave us direct election of senators. Before the 17th, state legislatures chose senators and if there was a vacancy before a senator’s term expired, most states had the governor appoint a replacement. As for presidential nominees, they were selected by votes in what once were lively, meaningful party conventions. The rise of the primary system still left the choice to members, but broadened the votes to be statewide rather than at conventions. In the last 20 years so-called open primaries weakened the party system a lot. I think an argument could be made that there were more Trump-like figures who were nominated before the 17th and the primary system than after, particularly in the 1800s.

[DIRTYSECRET]

Ok so you got me on the facts and the spelling. The question WAS: would Trump get nominated?

[Reily]

Note I am for the repeal of the 17th Amendment.

If I remember the history right, what brought the 17th amendment on us was:

1. A belief that state legislatures were too corrupt, (In those days believed to be corrupted but the Railroads!). Its probably still somewhat true (but not by the railroads!) Look at California, New Jersey & New York! Note that that direct election has NOT proven to be a panacea in those states!

2. State legislatures often would go for many Senate sessions without assigning a Senator. (I guess disagreements as to who is should be!) I would say then replace the 17 amendment with one that allows the Governor to pick the Senator if the state legislature goes 30 days without a choice!

[nevergore]

IBTD

[Avalon Memories]

I didn’t discuss your spelling. That was someone else. As for your question about Trump being nominated under earlier ways nominations occurred, I did answer it the best way it could be answered. A Trump-like figure had a better chance to be nominated in the way it was done in earlier times, particularly the 1800s. I would happily discuss the issue, but not if all you are looking for is an argument.

[READINABLUESTATE]

I hate “Text Speak” also. It’s just laziness.

[Phlyer]

I would say then replace the 17 amendment with one that . . .

One of my favorite topics. I would replace the 17th Amendment also, but in a different way.

The Senate was intended to be a house of representative of the States to balance the house of representatives of the people. That is why the Senate must approve (on behalf of the States) treaties. And it is why the Senate must approve Supreme Court Justices - who are supposed to ensure that the limitations on federal power established in the Constitution are enforced, thus leaving authority that is not delegated to the federal government in the hands of the States, or the people.

It is also why all revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives, since the people ultimately pay all taxes, but that's another topic.

So, for another related question: Why two senators from each State? Answer: Because travel in the 18th century was so slow and difficult that it was impractical for any Senator to remain in touch with is State if he was in DC for all Senate business. With two Senators, if one was back in his him state, the other would ensure that the state was still represented. (Note: At that time, there were at least two Congressmen from each state so even if one or a few were back in their home state, the people of that state would still have representatives in DC.)

However, travel now is quick enough that an individual can practically be in DC when essential Senate business is being conducted, yet home for the rest of the time. Note I said 'essential.' If the Senate were in session about half as long as the House of Representatives, since the duties of the Senate are different from and not just a repeat of the duties of the House, that would be appropriate.

So, to return to your original point: I would replace the 17th Amendment with one that made the Governor of each State be the (single) Senator from that State. As such, they would recognize that they are there to represent their State, not just the "Deep State" interests. I would bet that if this were the case, we'd never have had a Ruth Bader Ginsburg approved for the Supreme Court, and anything that would make a Ginsburg II less likely is a good idea to me.

[Reily]

Except you would never have the Governors attending the Senate!

State business keeps them - the governors in power that’s what they will attend to first! In most states the governor is a full time job!

The Founding fathers had it right, the state legislatures should do it. If they can’t for any reason then let the governor pick someone for the term.

[CodeToad]

Love it!

[CodeToad]

Maybe you should actually read the constitution before trying to comment on it.

[Repealthe17thAmendment]

It was the 17th amendment that was among the changes that inched us further away from a nation of strong states to a nation of weaker states and a stronger federal government, and the emergence of national parties.

Now, the politicians are more interested in serving the interests of their party than the interests of their state.

Had that amendment never been ratified, Trump wouldn't want to be president, because it would not have the same power as today. The Governor of New York would be much more powerful.

[Mr. Lucky]

Thank you.