Skip to comments.How to stop the future filibuster of nominees and restore control of the Senate where it belongs
Posted on 11/14/2003 1:21:17 PM PST by Political Junkie Too
The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
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.
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.
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.
The House of Representatives was supposed to be the chamber of Congress that was sensitive to the whims of the people. The Senate was supposed to be the deliberative body that was insulated from the people (the "cooling saucer"). Instead, through gerrymandering, the House has become protected and the Senate has become beholden to national bloc politics.
This proposed amendment to the Constitution will return real power to the states and restore their position at the federal table.
Then Republicans had better learn how to counter and nullify such childish tantrums. Until that happens, the party is doomed to continue the country's otherwise inevitable slide to both socialism and tyranny.
I disagree. That would just be playing their game. The issue is the legality of the filibuster of nominees (encroachment of separation of powers). To make them filibuster just endorses the legality of the filibuster. The root cause is the rogue Senate. The fix is to restore the Senate to its original form.
Voters would become much more interested in who might be elected to the State legislature. Most people today couldn't name their state legislators. That would change.
Even if California appointed Feinstein and Boxer instead of us voting for them, their motivations would be tied to their perception of the willingness of the legislature to send them back, instead of what Hillary! and Terry McAuliff tell them to do. Boxer and Feinstein are currently more focused on the Democrat national bloc politics as dictated from Chappaqua, not Sacramento.
If the legislature keeps sending back Senators that the public disagrees with, grass-roots politics will change the state houses in order for the legislatures to change the Senate.
Furthermore, you would get the big money out of the Senate.
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.
The alternative of having 2/3rds of the states requesting a Constitutional Convention is a bit frightening, who knows what would come out of that (tightening tinfoil hat).
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.