[HaveHadEnough]

Agreed. The 18th was the worst.

Just because someone doesn't like the results of how his fellow citizens vote for a senatorial candidate, doesn't mean that the idea of people choosing who represents them in Congress is a bad idea.

Right now, only 1/3 of our federal government is directly chosen by the people. Before the 17th, it was 1/6 (one of two houses in one of three branches of our government). 1/6 is too small.

[Lurker]

You really need to reread the Federalist papers. There were some very good reasons why Senators weren't popularly elected.

Those reasons are just as valid today as they were in 1780.

L

[MosesKnows]

The 18th was the worst

I disagree.

The 18th amendment followed the constitutional provisions. The Constitution is solely about the establishment of a government. The Constitution is not about the people. That is why the Constitution did not grant Congress legislative powers to prohibit the people.

The 18th amendment, once ratified, gave Congress the added legislative power to write law prohibiting intoxicating liquors. The law resulting from that added power was called the Volstead Act.

The 18th amendment utilized the constitutional amendment process required to add legislative powers. This is far better that the present day concept of merely re-interpreting the Constitution to achieve a political agenda and bypassing the amendment process altogether. The reason the people allow Congress to bypass the constitutional amendment process has its roots in the 16th and 17th amendments.

In my opinion the harm to the nation from the 16th and 17th amendments has been, and will continue to be, far worse than prohibition with virtually no way to repeal.