Posted on 11/15/2015 9:37:56 AM PST by YankeeinOkieville
Mark Levin is one of the smartest scholars on the United States Constitution and I trust his opinion. Having said that,every once in a while he will indicate that the 17th is not his favorite amendment to our U.S. Constitution and this got me to thinking about how our country has been affected by this one - both good and bad.
While there are a number of seemingly entrenched Senators we could do with changing, due at least in part to name recognition by LIVs and misleading TV ads, I'm not at all sure state legislatures could or would do a better job of selecting replacements. Two examples that spring to mind are Ted Cruz and Dr. Tom Coburn. I highly doubt that either man would've been U.S. Senators if it were left up to the elected officials in their respective states. Both were nominated and elected through strong grass roots uprisings of the people. Both have, in my opinion, more than proven to be up the the challenge.
OTOH, would we have been saddled with as many Kennedys? Do you think the various states would impose term limits? Did any?
I dare say very few of us are students of history to the degree that we know what the mood of the country was in 1913. Perhaps Mark is. I am curious to hear opinions of my fellow Freepers on whether you think this was a good idea or bad idea and how you think the country might be different if Senators were still appointed by and answerable to the several states.
If the States choose the senators, then the people chosen to be senator will probably look out for the interests of the State. That is the way things were supposed to work. Unfortunately, politicians who are popularly elected just try to take big positions on big issues which sound good to the guys down at the barber shop. In the end, the States lack representation and the country goes down hill too.
17th was a bad thing.
The 17th Amendment completely undermined the Federal System created by the Framers. Its quite simple. The House was to represent the people’s interests and the Senate, the States. Trace the expansion of Federal Power since the time of its passage. Its all you need to know.
The 17th broke the separation of powers.
Bad
Here in Michigan we have a GOP supermajority in the legislature as well has holding the governor’s mansion.
Detroit gives us democrat senators again and again and again. Those democrats repeatedly overrule the will of the people and legislature of the state they’re supposed to represent.
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 17
Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
There are currently a majority of Red-State legislatures. It would make sense that they would send more conservative Senators to DC. And the fact that this more correctly re-balances power - the Senators to represent the states - would be a good thing. The states are too much under the thumb of DC these days, & don’t seem to have the wherewithal to push back.
It’s awful and should be repealed.
L
17th was when we switched from senators being picked by state legislature to letting the people vote for them.
Seeing how some of the states are, I’m ambivalent on this one.
I would be surprised if a state legislature would send a Ted Cruz to the Senate. On the other hand, with the 17th amendment, why do we even need a Senate? It is redundant with the House.
It was designed very specifically. The Senate was to look out for the interests of the many states. The House to look out for the interests of the people at the Federal level. Precious little of the out of control massive Federal Government would be in place if the Senators were accountable to the many States since 1913.
The socialists of the day were successful in politicking that the Senate was nothing but the “rich & powerful”. The problem for the socialists was that the Senate blocked much of their agenda.
We need to abolish the 17th because it is nothing but a socialist agenda item that enables them to generate illegal popular votes instead of getting blocked.
The natural follow up question is, how did so many states vote to ratify this amendment and voluntarily give up their balanced check to the populace?
I think the 17th amendment was well intentioned but wrong. That said its never going back to the way it was which in the end is all that matters. What it did was untether the Senators from direct interests of their states. What I’d suggest would be more doable is to reduce Senate terms to match House members it would force Senators to be under increased scrutiny and cause them to be more responsive to their constitutes.
No 17th.
/johnny
The real problem as I see it is that the senators are picked by popular vote meaning the urban centers make the choice for the rest of us. I think we would see considerable change if we started electing them according to how many districts won.
Here in MI we’re doing away with straight ticket voting and the democrats are screeching bloody murder. Apparently sizable chunks of their electorate won’t or can’t vote beyond the top of the ticket.
As is the case in other states, I'm sure. Logically, with the population concentrations of large cities vs. rural areas, this scenario probably plays out more often than the reverse.
Our country has tended more and more towards a centralized government, with states fading into the back ground. Presidents, such as the current deceiver in chief, run roughshod over the states. The 17th has contributed to an unnecessary focus on DC as being the source of all power, knowledge and solutions.
We would never go back to the original plan (selected by state legislations), I would favor each state determining how the Senators were to be selected or one Senator to be selected by popular vote and one by the state legislation.
Bump for later reply
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.
