She is consistently voted the dumbest member of the U.S. Senate by congressional staffers. And it used to be no contest. But lately, the competition is heating up.
Posted on 06/01/2010 11:59:35 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Few members of the Tea Party have endorsed Rand Paul’s misgivings about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but a surprising number are calling for the repeal of an older piece of transformative legislation: the 17th Amendment. If you don’t have the Constitution on your smartphone, that’s the one adopted in 1913 that provides for direct popular election of United States senators.
Allowing Americans to choose their own senators seems so obvious that it is hard to remember that the nation’s founders didn’t really trust voters with the job. The people were given the right to elect House members. But senators were supposed to be a check on popular rowdiness and factionalism. They were appointed by state legislatures, filled with men of property and stature.
A modern appreciation of democracy — not to mention a clear-eyed appraisal of today’s dysfunctional state legislatures — should make the idea unthinkable. But many Tea Party members and their political candidates are thinking it anyway, convinced that returning to the pre-17th Amendment system would reduce the power of the federal government and enhance state rights.
Senate candidates have to raise so much money to run that they become beholden to special interests, party members say. They argue that state legislators would not be as compromised and would choose senators who truly put their state’s needs first.
Around the country, Tea Party affiliates and some candidates have been pressing for repeal — though there also has been a lot of hasty backtracking by politicians once the voters realized the implications. In Idaho, two candidates in last month’s Republican primary for the First District House seat said they favored repeal, including the winner, Raul Labrador...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Without the 17th—do you think NY would have TWO crazy senators?
One, maybe.
But TWO—I don’t think so.
I like the electoral college, but it needs a drastic change.
I would advocate that since there are one elector for each member of congress, it should be set up like this: One electoral vote for each congressional district, and two electors at-large for each state.
The idea of having "winner take all" for states cheapens the votes of the people, is conducive to corruption, and often skews the results. As an example, if this method had been in effect for the past half century, it is likely that JFK would have lost, and every subsequent presidential election would have been affected somewhat....Most importantly the 2000 election, in which the Florida fiasco would never have occurred, thereby depriving the Dems with one of their favorite talking points....
The Oligarchy gets antsy when the peons and peasants start getting uppity...
In the early years, this formula was used by 19 states. It was after Jackson's presidency, when the current two-party system settled in, that the winner-take-all approach became universal.
I should note that Maine and Nebraska use this formula today, although that reform is fairly recent.
And I agree with you, and have agreed since 1968 when I first heard about that little bit of early American history.
Which would you prefer, a rigged election or a rigged legislature? Which would you be more compelled to change, your local legislature or your Senator?
-PJ
I’ll settle for senators from coal, copper, cotton, pork bellies or double runionated tooter-redurkers rather than senators from NARAL and SEIU.
yes!!! repeal it right now. Restore checks and balances to the individual states.
Which would it be easier to change, the entire legislature or a single senator? The 49% of Republicans, for example, in a majority Democratic district basically have their voice taken away. Their legislators will put a Democrat in regardless of their wishes. But if Senators are elected then they have a better chance of their vote counting when combined with Republicans from across the state.
No telling what "arguments" had changed by 1913, but it was a fatal mistake, exposing a flaw that has led us to where we are.
In California, presently, it would make no difference, but the legislators (at least knowledgeable and competent ones,) knowing the conditions of their state should be in a better position to make rational choices.
The ignorant average voter (only qualification is a pulse) only knows which criminal is likely to provide the most free goodies at someone else's expense.
Next to the Constitution, The Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence, this is now among the most useful references in my library.
I will always be grateful to the Freeper who mentioned this title as an excellent source. He understated the excellence of the information trove in this book. The footnotes alone, citing other books, has prompted the purchase of (so far) 12 other books, many out of print, or available free in electronic format at The Gutenberg Project and , among other sources.
Yup, best non-fiction book I ever read.
That is the crux of the problem, isn't it?
On the one hand, removing a single Senator may be easier, but how many one-term Senators have there been who weren't removed by scandal? On the other hand, changing the legislature would me more beneficial long-term.
That said, one would have more opportunities to change the legislature (2-year and 4-year offices) during a single Senator's term of office (6 years).
-PJ
No telling what "arguments" had changed by 1913, but it was a fatal mistake, exposing a flaw that has led us to where we are.
In California, presently, it would make no difference, but the legislators (at least knowledgeable and competent ones,) knowing the conditions of their state should be in a better position to make rational choices.
The ignorant average voter (only qualification is a pulse) only knows which criminal is likely to provide the most free goodies at someone else's expense.
Next to the Constitution, The Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence, this is now among the most useful references in my library.
I will always be grateful to the Freeper who mentioned this title as an excellent source. He understated the excellence of the information trove in this book. The footnotes alone, citing other books, has prompted the purchase of (so far) 12 other books, many out of print, or available free in electronic format at The Gutenberg Project and , among other sources.
Great free Constitutional Political Philosophy Book Source
Whatever were they thinking in 1913?
Was it that freaking Woodrow Wilson community agitator again?
“It should absolutely be repealed.”
It would make things worse. It would remove accountability to the people. The best judges are in states with elected judiciary. why? Because the elites are more remote. In effect, the founders WERE RIGHT - indirect election makes the senate more elitist - they question is: DO YOU TRUST TODAY’S ELITES? They are not the smae elites as the generations prior. it wont do ANYTHING for states rights, because states themselves don’t stand up for their rights.
If you want your states rights back, VOTE for state and Federal politicians who support the 10th amendment. If they arent solid on it, vote them out.
“Pretty soon there will be a move to abolish the Electoral College.” The liberals already have tried that.
Speaking of criminals, it would also eliminate the impact of illegal voters influencing the election of Senators.
-PJ
Maybe you should compare the scope of state judges with federal judges. State judges (elected or appointed) deal with the issues of the individual states. Federal judges are the ones these days who are overturning state issues because of politics. I don't think comparing to judges works.
it wont do ANYTHING for states rights, because states themselves don’t stand up for their rights.
A trend that was started after the enactment of the 17th amendment perhaps? A self-fulfilling prophecy? A vicious circle? Ceding the appointment power to the people results in less legislature power results in unbeholden Senators results in less states' ability to defend rights results in increasing power grabs by the federal government?
-PJ
“If this was the case, in California, Feinstein and Boxer might as well be lifetime appointments. Democrats far outnumber the Republicans in the State Senate. There is a good chance Boxer can be defeated this year. At this time, the State Senate would be more likely to appoint the Mayor of Los Angeles - Antonio Villaraigosa, former gang member and very sympathetic to open borders. “
Exactly. People supporting repeal are not thinking straight.
We will get a cast of clowns no better than what we ave today, with the further injury that our protestations of their destruction of our country will fall on deaf ears.
While what you say is true, by having the Federal level senators picked at the state level would force the electorate to shift their attention from federal level elections to local level elections because they would have federal level implications. That in itself would be a very good thing.
“Without the 17th—do you think NY would have TWO crazy senators?
One, maybe.
But TWO—I don’t think so.”
Look at it this way ... Federal Judges are appointed, right? what are the odds that the 9th circuit would have a majorit of leftwingnut Judges? Yet there it is.
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.