How to stop the future filibuster of nominees and restore control of the Senate where it belongs

1789 | Framers of the Constitution

[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The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.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.

[Political Junkie Too]

The point of representation of the people is the business of the House of Representatives. You do not want to turn the Senate into a Super-House of Representatives, which is what it is today. The Senate was meant to be the State's chamber, a collective representation of the common interests of all the people of the state as a single constituency.

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

why doesn't President Bush do the same unprecedented thing and go down to the floor of the Senate and filibuster them with the "flick of his pen, the law of the land" and change their stupid senate rules.

Separation of powers, checks and balances. The President is not King.

-PJ

[rcocean]

Sorry I didnt see your post until after you made your response. I see your points but I still disagree. In CY 2003 if you want a conservative government you will have trust people Give them more power - they are on our side.

[Political Junkie Too]

"those who can do, those who can't, teach"

And those who can't teach, teach teachers.

-PJ

[Cboldt]

"When the people learn they can vote money for themselves from the public treasury .... " the jig is up. Democracy doesn't work, and the founding fathers knew it. History proves it too.

[Political Junkie Too]

If she was elected by the state legislature, how could I vote her out?

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

[narses]

Read about why the XVIIth was passed. You'll find the issue isn't as simple as you say. And having states NOT represented doesn't sound useful to me.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

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?