Posted on 02/17/2013 10:14:16 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
It is a matter of public record that the United States Senate is a terrible place where serious policy issues are ignored; routine votes are occasionally delayed over concerns about non-existent terrorist groups; and proverbial cans are proverbially kicked down the proverbial road of sadness, gridlock, and despair.
What's less clear is why the Senate is such a congress of louts. Is it the endless pressure to raise money? The never-ending campaign? The fact that Americans hold lots of substantive disagreements on important things and are themselves—it's been said—somewhat dysfunctional?
Actually, according to Georgia state Rep. Buzz Brockaway, the biggest problem with the Senate is that it's democratically elected. Brockaway, a Republican, has introduced a bill in the state legislature to repeal the 17th Amendment, which provides for the direct election of senators, and instead restore the responsibility of choosing members to state legislatures (as was the process until 1913).
The bill, HR 273, laments that "the Seventeenth Amendment has resulted in a large federal government with power and control that cannot be checked by the states," and suggests that "the original purpose of the United States Senate was to protect the sovereignty of the states from the federal government and to give each individual state government representation in the federal legislative branch of government."
If the bill passed, Georgia would be the first state to endorse repealing the 17th Amendment, but the idea has gained traction among conservatives over the last few decades. Texas Gov. Rick Perry supports it; so do GOP Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Jeff Flake of Arizona. (Republican Indiana Sen. candidate Richard Mourdock endorsed the idea during his campaign last year, before, in an ironic twist, losing the popular vote.) As Salon's Alex Seitz-Wald noted in 2012, conservatives blame the 17th Amendment for trampling over the rights of states by changing the constituency to which senators are accountable.
Of course, introducing a bill is the easy part. Getting voters to agree to give up their right to vote will probably be a tough sell.
If my posts riled you up. You are there. I pronounce you trim, fit, and ready for action. Heck, I’m no officer Laz. Get back in here and lead. Hit it for all of us!
The concept of three branches of government is an old-fashioned idea dreamed up by a bunch of dead white men to hold on to their power over the oppressed.
A single person in charge of everything will streamline the process and totally remove gridlock and other barriers to progress.
/s
If I have to choose between the founding fathers and NicCarraway, I will choose Madison, Franklin etc. Don’t take it personally.
How is your work on the “Why the 17th amendment is good for America” coming? Do you expect your vanity piece out soon? Waiting with keen anticipation for you to post it. Make sure you Freep Mail everyone so we don;t miss it. I will proof read it for you it you want.
Mr. Brockaway is my state representative.
What a co-ink-i-dink.
The more I read the more I see and understand the title of Why Not Just Get Rid of the Senate. If the objective is to remove corruption and save our money forcing the House to do its original intent and write all spending legislation, why not, Get Rid of the Senate, and let the People’s House handle all legislation. For what We the People have presently, I have to believe the Founders would approve.
“Perhaps that problem could be solved by requiring the first Senate seat to be appointed by the state assembly majority leader and the second seat appointed by the state assembly minority leader?”
“
That sounds like craven compromise to me and totally defeats the idea of repealing the 17th Amendment. We would be right back to the same city mouse/country mouse government we have now.
The idea is for citizens to elect their state legislatures. Republican legislatures will appoint Republican senators and vice versa. If a state likes progressive govt. so be it. People will vote with their feet.
I must take care of me to be able to lead.
Think: Rick Grimes in the last few episodes. LOL
funny thing about that word lead or is it lead?
Now (insert Tax-chick's tag-line and one is able to see where am starting to wonder down this path toward a goal. Will a thought give someone or some leader pause. I really do not know. Though Sg did say, all we can do is try.
Me, too. Back to the old way. We already have a “House of the people.” We don’t a Senate for them, too.
And it will make it a LOT easier to change Senators... I wouldn’t miss Chambliss or Isakson very much.
This would come as news to Senators Hayakawa (R-CA), Pete Wilson (R-CA), Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Clifford Case (R-NJ); Al D'Amato (R-NY); and James F. Buckley (Conservative-NY). All of them were elected by the people in recent decades, and would have never been selected by the Democrat controlled legislatures of their state.
Kirk is serving right now, and D'Amato, Buckley, and Fitzgerald were staunch conservatives that had zero chance of being appointed by their liberal state governments.
It's futile to explain to the anti-17th crowd who CURRENTLY runs state legislatures and what type of people they would appoint to the U.S. Senate if given the opportunity. (or even try to explain to them that appointed Senate in 1912 was a bunch of a criminals and hacks, hence the reason why amendment was ratified)
They're of the opinion that if the 17th is repealed, the state legislatures from 1789 will instantly arrive here in a time machine and appoint a bunch of Henry Clay's to serve to Washington.
Let them have their fantasy -- just don't let them nominate more politicians who agree with their Fantasyland.
Fun fact: Alabama (April 11, 2002), Delaware (July 1, 2010), and Maryland April 1, 2012) recently ratified the 17th, decades after it became law, as a symbolic show of support for an elected Senate.
The states that haven't yet ratified it are: Utah, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Virginia, and of course, Georgia (appointing Democrat Zig Zag Zell Miller to the Senate, who replaced a conservative Republican and went on cast the deciding vote to give Tom Daschle control of the Senate, was GOOD for conservatives, the kool-aid drinkers tell me)
Well I live in the Democratic Controlled State of California.
The key problem is not whether the Senator is ellected by the direct popular vote or the indirect popular vote through the state legislature. The problem is the inability to remove a senator before the end of the six year term of office. before the 17th Amendment, the Senator could be removed by the popularly elected state legislature. After the 17th Amendment, the state legislature was powerless to remove the Senator from office. Given the politics of the U.S. Senate, it is virtually impossible to hold a rogue Senator accountable for any misconduct, even the forms of misconduct which are impeachable offenses.
“before the 17th Amendment, the Senator could be removed by the popularly elected state legislature”
You certainly make a good point there.
But still don’t concur with your compromise proposal.
We already OVER-compromise.
It wasn’t really meant to be a compromise proposal as it was a chance to get people to think about what could happen if they acutally got what they thought they wanted. they thought they wanted a popularly elected Senator, and wht they got was the lesser Senator who could not be disciplined or removedd for misconduct and misrepresentation. Likewise with all of the proposals. They keep trying to find a way to rig the system so their candidate will be the one elected, but they fail to recognize what the consequences can be after they get what they thought they wanted.
In other words, the proposal wasn;t meant to be a serious one.
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.