How to stop the future filibuster of nominees and restore control of the Senate where it belongs

1789 | Framers of the Constitution

[Political Junkie Too]

Amendment XXVIII.

Section 1.

The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote. If Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

Section 3.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the term of any Senator elected before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Section 4.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

[Political Junkie Too]

What could motivate 2/3rds of the present Senators (or any group of future Senators) to propose a repeal of the 17th? My sense is that they like the system just the way it is.

Absolutely.

It would have to start in the House of Representatives. Then, a grass-roots campaign in the states would have to cause a ground-swell of support in their Legislatures. Finally, the Senate would have to be confronted with the question, "Why are you afraid of your own state legislatures? Why do you think that your own state would refuse to appoint you?"

-PJ

[Cboldt]

But I think state governments like the system the way it is too. It gives everybody a chance to blame the other guy. Grassroots lacks the wisdom to request such a change, and in fact, IMO, is inclined to go the other way, e.g., even abolishion of Electoral College.

I'm afraid the people have lost control of their government, and they don't even know it.

[Political Junkie Too]

The biggest complaint that state governments have is that they don't get enough money from Washington. I doubt the Senate would pass unfunded mandates on the states if the states control the hiring for the Senate. Furthermore, I doubt you'd see so much money leaving the states to be returned as federal funding with strings attached if the states chose their Senators. The money would never leave the state in the first place.

-PJ

[Cboldt]

I agree completely, it would be great for the states. But it would also make the state governments more accountable to their citizens. Now, the state governments can blame the Feds, and vice versa. THey like that system because it dilutes accountability. My point is that state governments are about as likely to clamor for a repeal of the 17th as the Senators themselves are.

It's discouraging as all get out, because repeal of the 17th would have lots of benefits.

[Political Junkie Too]

Now, the state governments can blame the Feds, and vice versa. THey like that system because it dilutes accountability.

I wonder if Gray Davis would agree with you.

I agree with you that this is just tilting at windmills. However, if ever there were a time to strike, it is now.

-PJ

[Cboldt]

Heheheheh ---- well, Grey Davis did try to blame the Feds!

It's tilting at windmills now, sort of, but the discussion is turning on a few minds that didn't even know the balance between State and Federal governments, reinforced by the system of selecting Senators envisioned by the founders.

[Political Junkie Too]

I've been trying to pay attention to references to this over the past few years, but I have not seen a discussion of the 17th amendment and campaign finance reform in any medium except for writings linked on Freeper Xthe17th's homepage. I'd love to hear talk-radio take this up as a way of fixing the Senate.

-PJ

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for 3 years, with maximum of 3 terms lifetime

I agree that, as a practical matter, we'll never stop popular election of senators. And I agree that the six-year term is not sacrosanct.

I would however propose that the compromise solution is to make the senators' term 8 years and make him/her run as the runningmate of the governor. Alternatively you could make the senator's term 4 years, followed by four years' term to be filled by the governor (or, if he isn't available, his appointee). Either way, the gubernatorial election is what determines the senator. Especially in the latter version, the governor unambiguously becomes influential in the Senate. It doesn't give the state legislature a voice, but it does link the Senate to the state government in the person of the governor, who has the incentive to opppose unfunded mandates and so forth.

But in cases of impeachment of PotUS I would prefer that the governors be the 'peers' of the president who sit in judgement. I wonder how many governors would have accepted x42 standards of conduct for executive office?

[rightcoast]

I think it's interesting to see what State Legislatures are controlled by what party, and how this would affect the makeup of the Senate. (Of course, this is a mere snapshot of state legislature party control as it exists right now, and any Constituional amendment would not be enacted for a while, and only a third of Senators are up for reelection every 2 years.)

The following states woud be affected:

Alabama -- State House and Senate are Democrat-controlled. The two current Republican Senators would face losing their seats.

Delaware -- State House is Republican-controlled. Therefore, one or both of the two current Democrat Senators could face losing their seats, depending on how Delaware's legislature chose to appoint its U.S. Senators.

Florida -- State House and Senate are Republican-controlled. The two current Democrat Senators would face losing their seats.

Georgia -- Both the state's U.S. Senators and State House & Senate are split Democrat/Republican, so it's unclear how that would affect Georgia's representation in the U.S. Senate.

Illinois -- State House and Senate are Democrat-controlled. The state's lone Republican Senator would face losing his seat.

Indiana -- Both the state's U.S. Senators and State House & Senate are split Democrat/Republican, so it's unclear how that would affect Indiana's representation in the U.S. Senate.

Iowa -- State House and Senate are Republican-controlled. The state's lone Democrat Senator would face losing his seat.

Kentucky -- State House is Democrat-controlled. Therefore, one or both of the two current Republican Senators could face losing their seats, depending on how Kentucky's legislature chose to appoint its U.S. Senators.

Louisiana -- State Senate is Republican-controlled. Therefore, one or both of the two current Democrat Senators could face losing their seats, depending on how Louisiana's legislature chose to appoint its U.S. Senators.

Maine -- State House & Senate are Democrat-controlled. The state's two Republican Senators would face losing their seats.

Michigan -- State House & Senate are Republican-controlled. The state's two Democrat Senators would face losing their seats.

Minnesota -- Both the state's U.S. Senators and State House & Senate are split Democrat/Republican, so it's unclear how that would affect Minnesota's representation in the U.S. Senate.

Mississippi -- State House is Democrat-controlled. Therefore, one or both of the state's Republican Senators could face losing their seats, depending on how Mississippi's legislature chose to appoint its U.S. Senators.

Montana -- State House & Senate are Republican-controlled. Therefore, the state's lone Democrat Senator would face losing his seat.

Nebraska -- State legislature (unicameral) is Republican-controlled. Therefore, the state's lone Democrat Senator would face losing his seat.

Nevada -- Both the state's U.S. Senators and State House & Senate are split Democrat/Republican, so it's unclear how that would affect Nevada's representation in the U.S. Senate.

New Mexico -- Both the State House & Senate are Democrat-controlled. Therefore, the state's lone Republican Senator would face losing his seat.

New York -- The State Senate is Republican-controlled. Therefore, one or both of the state's Democrat Senators could face losing their seats, depending on how New York's legislature chose to appoint its U.S. Senators.

North Carolina -- Both the state's U.S. Senators and State House & Senate are split Democrat/Republican, so it's unclear how that would affect North Carolina's representation in the U.S. Senate.

North Dakota -- Both the State House & Senate are Republican-controlled. Therefore, both of the state's Democrat Senators would face losing their seats.

Oklahoma -- Both the State House & Senate are Democrat-controlled. Therefore, both of the state's Republican Senators would face losing their seats.

Oregon -- Both the state's U.S. Senators and State House & Senate are split Democrat/Republican, so it's unclear how that would affect Oregon's representation in the U.S. Senate.

Rhode Island -- Both the State House & Senate are Democrat-controlled. Therefore, the lone Republican Senator would face losing his seat.

South Carolina -- Both the State House & Senate are Republican-controlled. Therefore, the state's lone Democrat Senator would face losing his seat.

South Dakota -- Both the State House & Senate are Republican-controlled. Therefore, both Democrat Senators would face losing their seats.

Tennessee -- Both the State House & Senate are Democrat-controlled. Therefore, both Republican Senators would face losing their seats.

Vermont -- The State House is Republican-controlled. Therefore, either the Democrat or Independent Senator could face losing their seats, depending on how Vermont's legislature chose to appoint its U.S. Senators.

Washington -- The State Senate is Republican-controlled. Therefore, one or both of the state's Democrat Senators could face losing their seats, depending on how Washington's legislature chose to appoint its U.S. Senators.

Wisconsin -- The State Assembly & Senate are both Republican-controlled. Therefore, both Democrat Senators would face losing their seats.

[woodyinscc]

I'm afraid the people have lost control of their government, and they don't even know it.

The Founder's in all their wisdom, said that it would take an upright, moral, and God fearing citizenry, to make the Republic work. The liberal ideology, and their modus operandi, are the antithesis of the Founder's wishes, and if their agenda prevails, you are oh so right.!

Scoundrels, crooks, and moral degenerates, are not paying the price in elections, and along with a complicit press, their influence is permeating the electorate. I am not trying to be over zealous, but we are in a battle for the heart and soul of this great Nation, a battle we have to win.

[judywillow]

One thing you might notice is this. Having senators elected by the state legislatures might eliminate much of the effect of vote manufacturing by the demnocrats since manufacturing votes is clearly most effective in statewide or nationwide elections.

One question people were asking in 2000 was how a state like Floriduh with a state legislature which is so overwhelmingly republican could even come close to voting for Algor for president. The answer near as I can tell is that the dems can manufacture all the votes they want in their own precincts and it won't keep the republicans from winning theirs. It's only in a statewide election that manufacturing votes really counts.

[rightcoast]

Based on my breakdown, there would be a +3 net gain for Republicans (and a corresponding -3 net loss for Democrats) in seats in the U.S. Senate. This is of course, assuming that politics and party divisions stay exactly the same from now until the time of the amendment, and for the durations of 3 elections past that. Which would never happen.

The point is that the real shift would not be realized in Republican/Democrat power grabs nationally. Instead, the Senate would be a more State-centric body, in tune by design and political necessity to the needs and desires of each Senator's State and State Legislature, and to its people by their election of their own State Legislature.

Federalism, overnight, would cease to be dead. Which, of course, is why this amendment would never see the light of day unless it is started by a Constitutional Convention of states.

[Cboldt]

The subject has been around a looong time. Xthe17th's homepage has most of the good links. Dean's articles ask "why" the change was made, but the explanation is really more "how" to dupe the voters/citizens/subjects. Promise the voter "a free lunch," or support for a pet principle (e.g., prohibition), voila. It's an age-old formula, proven to work.

[Cboldt]

Yup. It would be a radical change all right. More power to the states, right pronto.

[rcocean]

Your thinking on this confuses me. Your solution will take power from the people and give it to the elite. And the elite in this country are liberal.

The liberal elite has done everything possible to take certain issues out of the hands of the people by using unelected judges. These judges are nominated by the president and approved by 51 senators, after which these unelected philosopher kings can overturn elections, outlaw abortion and do anything they wish. They are unaccountable to no one and have life time tenure. That is the problem.

Electing senators by State legislators will simply make the senate more unaccountable, elitist and unaccountable. That’s why we changed the constitution in 1913.

The founding founders were wary of democracy since they did not want a majority that had no property oppressing the minority that had property. In those days land was property and vice versa. We past that years ago. Today the millionaires and billionaires (look at Soros) are in favor of income distribution.

If you wish to control the senate, reduce it term from 6 years to 4, write in term limits, and make the filibuster unconstitutional.

[coder2]

Considering Joe Public thinks we live in a democracy versus a republic, I think we would be in for a long haul.

My 13-yr-old tried to explain to her history teacher that our country was a republic and he disagreed with her and told her that he refused to discuss it any more. She even recited the pledge of allegiance to show him where it states that we were a republic ---- no luck.

When we talked about all this tonight.... I told her my opinion of the current state of teachers in this country and ended with the old saying --- "those who can do, those who can't, teach"

She understood 100%

[Political Junkie Too]

I would however propose that the compromise solution is to make the senators' term 8 years and make him/her run as the runningmate of the governor. Alternatively you could make the senator's term 4 years, followed by four years' term to be filled by the governor (or, if he isn't available, his appointee). Either way, the gubernatorial election is what determines the senator.

The main objection I have with this is the distinct difference between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch. I don't think you want to tie them together, and I think there would be Constitutional issues (both federal and state) with separation of powers if you tie the selection of one branch to the other branch's success at the polls.

I assume that the intent of the Framers was that the state legislatures would send one of their own (presumably experienced in the art of debate and legislation) to the Senate. The role of an executive is different than that of a legislator, and it should take a body of legislators to select their federal representative.

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

Nice analysis. I didn't want to do it. ;-)

As you point out in your post, I too am less interested in the makeup of the Senate as I am the conduct of the Senate. The current structure has created a rogue body that must be reined in by the states.

-PJ

[Cboldt]

There are lots of intertwined points, only one of them being the advise and consent function of the Senate. PJ's suggestion (which I strongly support) would have many ramifications, ultimately reducing the power of the Federal government, and increasing the power of state governments. Less money flowing to DC for redistribution would be a good thing.

[narses]

"chosen by the Legislature thereof"

Can a Governor veto that election? What if the legislative houses disagree?