Amendment XVII - (revision)
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for 3 years, with maximum of 3 terms lifetime; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
Back in 1776, with the technology (or lack thereof) back then, it took much longer to carry out duties, correspondence, etc... which is why they established a more prolonged term (6 yrs) for Senators.
However, now with today's modern technology, you can accomplish in seconds, hours, what took days, years in those days. Consequently, the "6 year" term now allows Senators to influence and impact 'more' of our everyday lives.
Therefore, the reduction from 6 to 3 years, is plenty of time for them to oversee and do, an even greater amount of activity than what could be accomplished in 6 yrs back then.
Are you sure about this?
Don't you think that the entire Constitution was seen as a tapestry of checks and balances, where if you pulled out one thread the whole thing begins to unravel?
Consider that the House has two year terms, the President has four year terms, and the Senate has six year terms. Perhaps this was intended to maintain a level of consistency to government by overlapping terms amongst the branches rather than overcoming distance and lack of technology?
Furthermore, the two year House term was meant to completely turn over the House every two years in order to make it sensitive to the people. The six year Senate term, staggered into three classes that are two years apart, was meant to allow for deliberation of larger issues of longer-term impact (beyond the span of the House) rather than to allow for distance of communication. The idea was to have representatives to make decisions, which still holds true today despite instantaneous communication technology.
-PJ
I agree that, as a practical matter, we'll never stop popular election of senators. And I agree that the six-year term is not sacrosanct.I would however propose that the compromise solution is to make the senators' term 8 years and make him/her run as the runningmate of the governor. Alternatively you could make the senator's term 4 years, followed by four years' term to be filled by the governor (or, if he isn't available, his appointee). Either way, the gubernatorial election is what determines the senator. Especially in the latter version, the governor unambiguously becomes influential in the Senate. It doesn't give the state legislature a voice, but it does link the Senate to the state government in the person of the governor, who has the incentive to opppose unfunded mandates and so forth.
But in cases of impeachment of PotUS I would prefer that the governors be the 'peers' of the president who sit in judgement. I wonder how many governors would have accepted x42 standards of conduct for executive office?