Posted on 11/14/2003 1:21:17 PM PST by 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The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.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.
True. There are other benefits as well. For instance, you wouldn't see a carpetbagger like, oh, let's say, someone from Arkansas swooping into, say for example, New York, and claiming the Senate seat as his or her own. You'd think that the legislature of New York, in this example, would be grooming one of their own for the Senate.
-PJ
I don't know about "elitist", but I disagree with the presumption that having senators actually picked by state legislators (as the founders wrote) would reduce accountability.
Seems to me it would make senators 1000 times MORE accountable. Could you explain your reasoning?
While I understand and agree that a particluar Senator chosen by his state legislators would very likely be less accessible to citizens in his state - save those of his own district - I think the senator would be very responsive to the needs of fellow state legislators. Those other state legislators are very accessible and accountable to their constits.
So while a senator appointed the original way is less accountable to ME, he is WAY accountable to my state rep - who is WAY accessible and accountable to me.
Of course I omit the arguments pertaining to strengthening state's rights.
Hey, didn't Lanny Davis say the same about his buddy, Clinton's love affair with Exec. Orders?
You cannot serve in the Senate of the United States of America if you have killed (by drowning in auto accidents) any female aids.
I see your point ('States' interests more forcefully represented directly in the Federal legislative body) by having the Senate legislators tied to the Governorships.
My only hesitation is the 8 year term - too long for so much power. I would lean to 4 year terms.
6 years is definitely too long in today's world. The decision-making and activity process (yes 'deliberation' as well) can be accomplished very efficiently in much less time than the 6 years originally established by the Founders.
Remember, it took several days to get correspondece between the colonies to the capital back then (it takes seconds today). No wonder they needed 6 years to deliberate.
I'm going to take this one point by point.
Your solution will take power from the people and give it to the elite. And the elite in this country are liberal.
First of all, this isn't my solution, it's the original intent of the Framers back in 1789. If you recall, Madison originally objected to a bicameral Congress (he wanted true democracy of the people), but ultimately came around to the idea that the separation of a people's chamber and a state's chamber was an ingenious invention.
As I see it, there are reasons why the states are the way they are. Those reasons are geographic; there are mountains and valleys and rivers and such that naturally segregate people into regions that develop into symbiotic cities and towns that have common interests within their geographic boundaries. In fact, the main objection was that the states became their own countries after Independence, and they were hesitant to give up their autonomy under a new federalism.
The separation of Congress into a people's chamber and the state's chamber allowed for both the fickle will of the people and the long-term interests of the state to share in the governing of the United States.
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.
The solution to that problem is elsewhere in the Constitution. The Constitution only defines the Supreme Court of the United States. The lower courts are left to the Congress to define, and eliminate, and limit scope, as they choose. That is one of the threads of the tapestry of checks and balances.
Electing senators by State legislators will simply make the senate more unaccountable, elitist and unaccountable.
Actually, that will reconnect the people, the several states, and the federal government. Today, people do not pay attention to politics because they think that they can't do anything to influence what happens in Washington. How would they feel if they learned that what happens in Washington is influenced by what happens in Sacramento, and Austin, and Albany, and Tallahassee? If people don't like what is happening at the federal level, they first have to change what happens at the local level and then those changes will ripple to the federal level.
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.
In an earlier post, the influence of modern technology on our government structure was cited as an agent of change. I submit that that was what was happening in 1913, but the 17th amendment was the misguided "solution" to the perceived problem.
Remember what was happening at the time. America had just settled the Wild West. The telegraph connected remote locations with "instantaneous communications" (the first internet?), and railroads made cross-country travel safer and quicker than Conestoga wagon trains. Range wars were being waged between cattle barons, rail barons, farmers, and settlers. Western territories were becoming states. Eastern industrialization was transforming the economy. There was a lot of corruption taking place, both in eastern politics and western territorial angling for statehood. By 1913, it all came to a head.
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.
Look at Corzine and other millionaires that bought their Senate seats via the money to wage a media campaign. Look at the failed campaigns of Michael Huffington and Al Checchi, where millions were spent but they failed to win the seat. Where is all that money going? It's going to NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, FNC, and all the other media outlets that run the ads that are necessary to win a campaign today. Eliminate the campaigns and you eliminate the money in federal politics. Eliminate the money spigot and you eliminate a source of funding to the "elite" media that they count on every two years.
Any money that is spent will be spent at the local level for House seats which have smaller constituencies. Furthermore, with the Senate campaings removed, there is more "air in the room" for Representatives to get their message out and not lost in the rhetoric of national bloc party politics that dominate the Senate today.
No, I think that returing the selection of Senators to the states is the ultimate solution to what's wrong with our government today.
-PJ
Federal Constitution trumps State Constitution. A governor cannot veto the selection of a federal appointment that is Constitutionally designated.
If the legislative houses disagree, then the state goes unrepresented until they do agree. That should be sufficient motivation to reach a consensus.
-PJ
-PJ
Separation of powers, checks and balances. The President is not King.
-PJ
And those who can't teach, teach teachers.
-PJ
Change your state legislation. If your fellow state citizens don't agree, then she deserves to be Senator.
I could vote for a republican state house and senate, but what if the state legislature is gerrymandered?
I'm not aware of state districs being reapportioned the way that Congressional districts are reapportioned. That could just be me, though.
What if people don't understand the relationship between the state legislature and the senate? They may dislike the senator Boxer but like their local democratic legislature.
They'll learn. Quickly.
they did not intend for federal judges to become kings who overrule the legislatures at will.
True, but that is a result of national bloc politics that focus more on party affiliation than local state issues. It is more important that Democrats maintain power in any way possible. They are drawing their last stand line in the sand with the Judiciary because they realize that the public is turning away from them and rejecting their message. Since they can't win at the ballot, they are trying to legislate from the judicial bench.
I believe that we can break the stranglehold on central politics run by the Clintons and McAuliffes of the world by returning control of the Senate to the states and taking away the need for national party support.
-PJ
A new thought . . . I have been seeing only an upside from having the (popularly elected) governors powerful (but, with the independent House of Representatives to get along with, not dominant) in Congress. Does it not make sense for the governors to "advise and consent" to federal appointments? Well, I can see that the governors would be made more powerful in federal appointments within their states . . . is that bad? As it is, the Senate is an indepent power base not coordinated with the state government at all. Thing about legislatures is their vulnerability to gerrymandering tends to make them reflect previous rather than current political correlation of popular will. Statewide election may create "rotten boroughs" with few residents, but at least the boundaries of the states are pretty much set in concrete (exceptions would be the creation of WVa, and the admission of completely new states into the Union).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.
I'm not sure it's written anywhere that governors are political neophytes without legislative experience. Some are, e.g. Reagan and Swartzneger in CA.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.
But consider the counter example of the Electoral College for the selection of the federal executive. That is now traditionally a rubber stamp for populal elections in the several states but by constitutional design it is an expression of the will of the state legislatures, not the governors. Where is the dichotomy between the legislative branches of the states and the executive branch of the the federal gummint in that?
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.