Replies

I was talking about two different subjects with the 'gifter' in the post. One was about his contention that a cloture vote would change/amend the constitution... My question to him concerned what about pre 1917 when cloture was adopted then one or more Senators could stop any legislation in the senate and cloture didn't exist. Now 60 senators can halt debate and force a vote.... back then no such thing existed thus one or more senators could control... 41 is the number needed today.

Second, senators appointed by states again would be at the whim of the ruling legislatures/Govs. in each state. So where you have democratic controlled states look for them to appt democrat senators and vice versa for the Republican controlled states. Would we be any better off? I don't know but maybe we would. True senators wouldn't be on the take for money from the many interest groups. So from that standpoint they would be trying to curry favor from their state governing bodies. I just don't think it will happen, but in all honesty I'd like to see it tried again.

TLBSHOW..... still waiting for answers... crickets chirping... but from you that is the usual.. all cut/paste and no action.

So where you have democratic controlled states look for them to appt democrat senators and vice versa for the Republican controlled states. Would we be any better off?

I agree on that point. What I don't think would happen is the tight national coalitions that we see today that keep the Democrat Senators in such tight lockstep on the bills/issues before it. I don't know how a Senator appointed at the whim of the CA legislature would support the warroom efforts of a Senator from NY. I could be wrong, though.

-PJ