Posted on 01/07/2009 2:35:38 PM PST by MosesKnows
I ask in regard to the 17th amendment. The 17th amendment is one of my least favorite amendments but ignoring it is not an improvement nor is it legal to ignore it.
First, for clarity I post how the Constitution directed the election of Senators prior to the 17th amendment.
Article. 1, Section. 3. 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.
The state legislature would choose the state’s Senators because the Senator’s function is to represent his state. The people of the state were responsible for electing the House Representatives because the function of the House was to represent the people.
It makes good sense so far doesn’t it. Section 3 also provided; and 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
Let’s see how the ratified 17th amendment modified Article. 1, Section. 3 of the Constitution.
Amendment XVII: Senator election and number.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof elected by the people thereof, for six Years; 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.
Here is the part of the 17th amendment Harry Reid appears to be unaware of or chose to over-look, which prompted my question.
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.
When was the last time ANY of the Washington elites payed the slightest attention to the plain language of the Constitution?
If you asked him, I’m 100% certain he’d reply “why would I go and do a dopey thing like that?”
Sure. He is a liberal. Hates it. It stands in the way of his idea of a Utopia with him in charge. He gets all the money and then doles it out to us idiots who can not fend for ourselves.
Read?????
That’s what staff does.
Senators are too busy senatoring to read.
They are so busy senatoring that they don’t even have time to read the bills before they vote on them.
They are so busy senatoring that they probably never had time to read the bills they supposedly wrote before the committee voted on them.
Read. That’s what staffs are for.
Now I’m curious. Why did you start your reply with the word no?
Has Harry Ried ever read the constitution - the answer is no.
Barbara Boxcutter of California thinks the White House was built to protect the President.
“Do I ever read the Constitution? Of course I read the Constitution. There’s that part where they talk about religion being the opiate of the masses and about the workers of the world uniting.”
“Do I ever read the Constitution? Of course I read the Constitution. There’s that part where they talk about religion being the opiate of the masses and about the workers of the world uniting.”
Change 1:
Previous: “Has Harry Reid ever read the Constitution?”
To: “Has Harry Reid ever read anything?.”
Amendment XXVIII - When two democrats disagree over the appointment of any official, the contest shall be decided by a duel with pistols at a distance of 1 paces. The winner shall be the rest of the country. :)
No but he might at least has had a chance to hear it on CSPAN 2 had the REPUBS ever done one of the real 24/7 filerbusters of old.
Learning to read in Searchlight Nevada was optional when ole Dingy was in school.
Article 1, Section 5: “Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and QUALIFICATIONS of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business;
Rules of the Senate state that the Illinois Secretary of State should have signed the letter of appointment. He did not sign. This disqualifies Buriss.
Was there an election? Isn’t this an appointment?
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.