Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
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.

The main objection I have with this is the distinct difference between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch. I don't think you want to tie them together, and I think there would be Constitutional issues (both federal and state) with separation of powers if you tie the selection of one branch to the other branch's success at the polls.

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. 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.

-PJ

37 posted on 11/14/2003 7:12:06 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (It's not safe yet to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: Political Junkie Too
The main objection I have with this is the distinct difference between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch. I don't think you want to tie them together, and I think there would be Constitutional issues (both federal and state) with separation of powers if you tie the selection of one branch to the other branch's success at the polls.
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?

58 posted on 11/15/2003 3:55:21 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (The everyday blessings of God are great--they just don't make "good copy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson