Ben Sasse Calls For Repealing The 17th Amendment

Daily Caller ^ | September 8, 2020 | SCOTT MOREFIELD

[maggief]

Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution in an op-ed published Tuesday by The Wall Street Journal.

Proposed in 1912 and ratified by 36 state legislatures on April 8, 1913, the amendment required U.S. senators to be elected by popular votes in each state. Prior to its enactment, Article I of the Constitution mandated that each state legislature vote to send two senators to Washington.

Sasse’s op-ed, titled, “Make the Senate Great Again,” suggested several Senate reforms “aimed at promoting debate, not ending it.”

“What would the Founding Fathers think of America if they came back to life?” Sasse began. “Their eyes would surely bug out first at our technology and wealth. But I suspect they’d also be stunned by the deformed structure of our government. The Congress they envisioned is all but dead. The Senate in particular is supposed to be the place where Americans hammer out our biggest challenges with debate. That hasn’t happened for decades—and the rot is bipartisan.”

[fieldmarshaldj]

No, you said veto. You don’t even understand how government works.

[central_va]

So in what bizarre world do Republican legislatures send Democrat Senators to DC?

[cornfedcowboy]

I have no illusions that repealing the 17th Amendment gets us out of any mess. It wouldn’t hurt though. The reality is that doing away with the 17th and invoking term limits is a pipe dream. Right now we have to preserve the rights we currently maintain.

[wgmalabama]

Elections are term limits. Can’t help most people are too stupid to enforce them.

[central_va]

Listen to me I made a mistake I should have said with 60 Republicans they would have a lock on cloture which power wise is everything in the Senate. So I revised that post. Get it? But you can latch on that that if you want like a child.

[Grimmy]

I have no illusions that repealing the 17th Amendment gets us out of any mess. It wouldn’t hurt though. The reality is that doing away with the 17th and invoking term limits is a pipe dream. Right now we have to preserve the rights we currently maintain.

*********

No war is ever won on the defensive.

To survive, we have to eliminate the enemy.

[fieldmarshaldj]

You keep assuming that Republican legislature = Conservative Republican Senator elected. Hint: it doesn’t.

What do state legislatures want ? Money from D.C.

They would only elect fiscally profligate puppets to get as much money out of the treasury as possible. Fiscal Conservatives would be completely shut out because they would be seen as not bringing home the $$ to their states. If one got elected by accident, they’d be out on their ass because they’d be attacked for allowing federal $$ to go to another state.

This is what you and your ilk are advocating for. But you’re so blinded by your hatred and ignorance on this subject that you CANNOT acknowledge this reality.

[Fightin Whitey]

But they’re related—both 17 and 19 are prime numbers.

Yes, and Sasse is a prime faggoty ass-faced pony-soldier.

All things work out for those in the hands of FR.

[central_va]

So a Democrat is better that a RINO? Hmm, you have lost it dude. I say get the RINO then side line them. Give them no committee assignments. It's a numbers game.

Also does it occur to you that post repeal red state reps will run more to the right to get votes? Of course they will. People in their districts my even learn their names.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I disagree on that point: it would hurt. Do I think the Senate is dysfunctional now ? Yes, but going back to a demonstrably broken method pre-17th won’t make it better. The present system is marginally better in that we might actually be able to elect Conservative Senators. That would be gone otherwise for the reasons I’ve cited in other posts and in countless discussions on this subject.

I’ve proposed in lieu of term limits for elected officials we sack civil service and go back to patronage 19th-century style (albeit with more professionalism). Instead of armies of bureaucrats spending decades growing that malignant cancer of leftism, patronage people come in for 4 years or 8 years with an administration and out they go at the end. No more billions or trillions spent on these subversive elements.

Part of it, too, may require removing the capital entirely and farming out different sections around the country. Decentralization is key, too.

I’d rather pursue other options away from empowering elected officials and bureaucrats.

[fieldmarshaldj]

You’re in no position to be accusing others of acting childish. You got caught demonstrating ignorance while everything else you post are insults or large-font melodramatic bandwith-wasting nonsense.

[fieldmarshaldj]

RINOs enact, serve and give cover to the Demonrat agenda. They’re in bed with and indistinguishable from the opposition party. Yet one more thing beyond your comprehension of political reality.

[central_va]

RINOs enact, serve and give cover to the Demonrat agenda. They’re in bed with and indistinguishable from the opposition party. Yet one more thing beyond your comprehension of political reality.

Schumer thanks you.

[for-q-clinton]

huh? So you support direct election of senators?

Ok. I think you’re wrong and misguided, but you’re entitled to be wrong.

[eddie willers]

I trust the legislatures more than I do the “popular” vote.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I support the present method of electing Senators, yes. It may not be the most ideal, but it is better than what it was before the ratification of the 17th, which was a demonstrable failure.

Some folks that hear the superficial arguments made against the 17th might be persuaded - but when they are informed what it would mean in action, it doesn’t look nearly as appealing.