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

Skip to comments.

Sen. Feingold's Constitution
The Washington Post ^ | February 22, 2009 | George F. Will

Posted on 02/22/2009 7:11:41 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

A simple apology would have sufficed. Instead, Sen. Russ Feingold has decided to follow his McCain-Feingold evisceration of the First Amendment with Feingold-McCain, more vandalism against the Constitution.

The Wisconsin Democrat, who is steeped in his state's progressive tradition, says, as would-be amenders of the Constitution often do, that he is reluctant to tamper with the document but tamper he must because the threat to the public weal is immense: Some governors have recently behaved badly in appointing people to fill U.S. Senate vacancies. Feingold's solution, of which John McCain is a co-sponsor, is to amend the 17th Amendment. It would be better to repeal it.

The Framers established election of senators by state legislators, under which system the nation got the Great Triumvirate (Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John Calhoun) and thrived. In 1913, progressives, believing that more, and more direct, democracy is always wonderful, got the 17th Amendment ratified. It stipulates popular election of senators, under which system Wisconsin has elected, among others, Joe McCarthy, as well as Feingold.

The 17th Amendment says that when Senate vacancies occur, "the executive authority" of the affected 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."

Feingold's amendment says:

"No person shall be a Senator from a State unless such person has been elected by the people thereof. 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."

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; 17thamendment; 1913; 1stamendment; feingold; mcbama; mccain; mccainfeingold; mccaintruthfile; mcqueeg; russfeingold; senate; senators
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 02/22/2009 7:11:42 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; stockpirate; ChrisInAR; AvOrdVet; MaggieCarta; indylindy; roamer_1; ...

A simple apology would have sufficed. Instead, Sen. Russ Feingold has decided to follow his McCain-Feingold evisceration of the First Amendment with Feingold-McCain, more vandalism against the Constitution.

"I will work with Democrat friends of mine as we address specific issues, like I always have..."
—U.S. Sen. John McCain, RINO-Ariz., 2002-02-19

Feingold's solution, of which John McCain is a co-sponsor, is to amend the 17th Amendment. It would be better to repeal it.

What were you expecting from two Democrats?

The Juan McCain Truth File.

"I have great respect for Al Gore."
—John McCain, October 2, 2008

FR Keywords: mccaintruthfile, mcqueeg, mcbama

Please tag all relevant threads with the aforementioned keywords.

This can be a very high-volume ping list at times.

To join the ping list:
FReepmail rabscuttle385 with the subject line add  mccaintruthfile.
(Stop getting pings by sending the subject line drop mccaintruthfile.)


Republican Commissar’s Warning: By joining this ping list, you may be subjected to the delusional rants and ramblings of McCainiacs, of "moderate" Republicans, of pragmatic conservatives resigned to voting for the lesser of two Democrats, and of countless GOP shills who simply want to meet a new overlord.

2 posted on 02/22/2009 7:26:21 PM PST by rabscuttle385 ("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
It stipulates popular election of senators...


3 posted on 02/22/2009 7:28:04 PM PST by rabscuttle385 ("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
"It stipulates popular election of senators, under which system Wisconsin has elected, among others, Joe McCarthy,"

When Wisconsin sent PATRIOTS to DC.

4 posted on 02/22/2009 7:33:04 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
From our AIP Platform:

Repeal of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments

We consider the federal income tax to be destructive of our liberty, privacy, and prosperity. Therefore, we are working to bring about its complete elimination and the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We recommend that the current system be replaced by an equitable, simple, noninvasive, visible, efficient tax, one that does not destroy or even infringe upon our economic privacy and liberty.

We also call for the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. Its enactment greatly reduced the power of our state legislatures and state governments – which are much closer to the people – and damaged our system of federalism.

5 posted on 02/22/2009 7:34:44 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Where every principled conservative belongs: http://aipnews.com/mxPage.asp?ID=3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
It would be better to repeal it.

About every 15 or 20 columns Will gets something right. This is one of those time.

L

6 posted on 02/22/2009 7:36:27 PM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

What is your party’s position on how to prevent the numerous deadlocks on choosing Senators that plagued state legislatures prior to 1913?

Also, what is your party’s position regarding the Federal Reserve and the Gold Standard?


7 posted on 02/22/2009 7:39:30 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Barack Obama: in your guts, you know he's nuts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
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."...so they're giving total power to governors? ...like it is now? ...or back when only State legislature appointed the Senators? ...he's only confusing the issue(s)?

"Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money" Margaret Thatcher
There are two sets of rules. One set for the rulers and another for the rest of us. —Richard Yancey, former IRS tax collector

8 posted on 02/22/2009 7:39:49 PM PST by skinkinthegrass (just b/c you're paranoid, doesn't mean "they" aren't out to get you.. :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I hope this isn’t a backdoor to do away with presidential term limits... something already been introduced in the congress. I worry about slipping it into something like this when no one is paying attention... since this likely would receive 3/4 of the states voting for it.


9 posted on 02/22/2009 7:40:52 PM PST by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The 17th Amendment destroyed our Republican form of government. The founders knew what they were doing when they formed our government.

The people had a house...the House of Representatives to serve the people in various districts. Then they formed the Senate, the state’s representatives in Washington D.C. In this way, the federal government was a partner with the states. The states had a say in how the federal government operated. The states couldn’t be railroaded by an overpowering central government.

Then came along the 17th Amendment and gave the people two houses and took the states out of the equation and made them subservient to the federal government...something the founding fathers did not want at all.

Repeal the 17th Amendment now!!!!!


10 posted on 02/22/2009 7:41:32 PM PST by MissouriConservative (If there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skinkinthegrass

Mr. Will apparently wants to repeal the 17th Amendment and return to state legislatures choosing Senators.


11 posted on 02/22/2009 7:41:42 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Barack Obama: in your guts, you know he's nuts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Arizona Carolyn

It better not be. I sure don’t want Obama getting a permanent mandate for power like Hugo Chavez just did.


12 posted on 02/22/2009 7:43:10 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Barack Obama: in your guts, you know he's nuts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; Arizona Carolyn

By “permanent mandate,” I mean the ability to be re-elected forever if that’s what the drooling masses want.


13 posted on 02/22/2009 7:44:09 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Barack Obama: in your guts, you know he's nuts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative

There is a reason the history of the 17th Amendment isn’t covered in publik skools.


14 posted on 02/22/2009 7:44:32 PM PST by randomhero97 ("First you want to kill me, now you want to kiss me. Blow!" - Ash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Repeal of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments...I'm all for that.
"Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money" Margaret Thatcher
There are two sets of rules. One set for the rulers and another for the rest of us. —Richard Yancey, former IRS tax collector

15 posted on 02/22/2009 7:45:41 PM PST by skinkinthegrass (just b/c you're paranoid, doesn't mean "they" aren't out to get you.. :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative

I would never want to lose the ability to vote for both Senators and Congress...so I would never vote to repeal the 17th amendment. Why would I allow an incompetent corrupt government to choose my Senator...no way.


16 posted on 02/22/2009 7:46:38 PM PST by nyconse (When you buy something, make an investment in your country. Buy American or bye bye America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: randomhero97

No way this would ever pass in the states so, it will not happen. Feingold’s bs won’t be ratified either.


17 posted on 02/22/2009 7:47:53 PM PST by nyconse (When you buy something, make an investment in your country. Buy American or bye bye America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; rabscuttle385
Whatever McCain is for I'm AGAINST IT!
18 posted on 02/22/2009 7:49:45 PM PST by BufordP ("I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system."--George "the Abandoner" Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Why are all you people fretting? Each time one of these "progressives" tries to "fix" things, he makes it worse. And each time they actually ram through some new outrage, it brings the Dark Times one step closer. We are going to be measuring blood spilled in number of acres covered 1 foot deep before the next inauguration.

Despite what those smug stupid communists like Feingold, and his lackey, McCain, believes, we have the brains, the will, the guns. We just need the one thing that exceeds our gag limit. And Feingold, Pelosy, Reid, et.al. are searching, desperately, high and low, to find that last indigestable tidbit.

19 posted on 02/22/2009 7:50:12 PM PST by jonascord (Hey, we have the Constitution. What's to worry about?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Mr. Will apparently wants to repeal the 17th Amendment and return to state legislatures choosing Senators.
thanks...well, that does make sense....more local control.It was somewhat confusing....make it better; one in-state, one in D.C. & rotate 'em.
"Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money" Margaret Thatcher
There are two sets of rules. One set for the rulers and another for the rest of us. —Richard Yancey, former IRS tax collector

20 posted on 02/22/2009 7:54:14 PM PST by skinkinthegrass (just b/c you're paranoid, doesn't mean "they" aren't out to get you.. :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: randomhero97

“There is a reason the history of the 17th Amendment isn’t covered in publik skools.”

Of course not. If the public was actually informed and educated about it, the 17th would be repealed. But then again, in our day and age, they probably wouldn’t give a rat’s rump.


21 posted on 02/22/2009 7:54:37 PM PST by MissouriConservative (If there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: nyconse

“Why would I allow an incompetent corrupt government to choose my Senator...no way.”

The founding fathers knew that the government that you had the most control over was your state government. People’s daily lives were revolving around the state level. Today the states have been relegated to second class because of the direct election of senators.

The repeal of the 17th Amendment would make sure that more people paid attention to their “corrupt” state government, like they should be doing.


22 posted on 02/22/2009 7:56:45 PM PST by MissouriConservative (If there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The more times, and the longer each part of government is hamstrung by it's own greed, the better it is for those of us who have to pay the bills.

I would much rather have a bunch of thrashing, ineffective parochial boobs than the coolly efficient criminal enterprise, functioning under cover of law, that we have now.

23 posted on 02/22/2009 8:00:05 PM PST by jonascord (Hey, we have the Constitution. What's to worry about?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Feingold's Constitution:


24 posted on 02/22/2009 8:01:47 PM PST by TheBattman (Pray for our country....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Which is why we had all be very careful about what is in this bill.. they will slide a reversal of term limits right by the states if they think they can get away with it and with Obama taking the Census into the WH we could very will end up like Venezuela.. I always said — leading up to the election — that it was dangerous not to vote for McCain... no matter how much we all disliked the man... because with Obama we become Venezuela.


25 posted on 02/22/2009 8:03:30 PM PST by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative

I live in a Dem state...Ohio-Voinivich is retiring. We may be able to elect a Repub...if we let the state handle it, We’d get a Dem for sure...no thanks. This would not make us more free-less I fear.


26 posted on 02/22/2009 8:05:00 PM PST by nyconse (When you buy something, make an investment in your country. Buy American or bye bye America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: nyconse

I didn’t say it would be easy. It will take lots of work to turn state governments around but it would be well worth the effort.

The states need a voice in the federal government like our founders intended. That way the states wouldn’t be railroaded into accepting federal mandates. The states would be there to keep a balance on things.

As I said, it’s not easy but freedom isn’t free, as is often stated. Too many people, Republicans included, have given up on paying attention to their state governments and have concentrated on the federal level. There is the problem.

My state, Missouri, was long a democratic stronghold. Now, we have a Republican house and senate in this state and have had for quite a few years now. It took a long time and lots of hard work but it was worth it. If the 17th had been repealed, my state wouldn’t have McCaskill as a senator. And we wouldn’t be known as a state that elected a dead guy to the Senate a few years back.


27 posted on 02/22/2009 8:16:27 PM PST by MissouriConservative (If there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative

I don’t think this will ever happen. I see your point, but there was plenty of corruption in the old system from the (admittedly) little I know about it.


28 posted on 02/22/2009 8:33:15 PM PST by nyconse (When you buy something, make an investment in your country. Buy American or bye bye America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Personally, I think those deadlocks were overblown and used as an excuse to gut true federalism. I don't claim to be an historical expert on the history of that time, but that's the conclusion I reached from the reading I did about it. They threw the republican baby out with the partisan bathwater, you might say.

As to the other matters, we are still developing our policies. Our platform does not as yet address them in detail.

We wanted to lay down the non-negotiables first:

Preface

America's Independent Party has as its goal the return of our nation to a set of foundational principles. We call them "America's Principles." The word "principle" comes from a Latin root that means "first things." America's Principles are the "first things" that our country should consider in all of our domestic and foreign policies.

America's Independent Party recognizes that these "first things" are clearly defined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

However, we also believe that there is room for debate over prudential policy matters within certain parameters of fundamental American political thought and a framework of ordered liberty. We seek a return to an approach to government that facilitates that respectful and necessary debate, but that never compromises the moral premises that made this country great.

We are working to pull together the best minds in America to not just complain about the current mess, but to develop a workable, practical alternative.

From the long debates and discussions that have already taken place so far, several things have reached what amount to a consensus:

1. The Federal Reserve has to go, and must be replaced with a system in which power is dispersed, one that is controlled by the citizenry at the local level. If the banks are failing, let them fail. The dinosaurs need to die. They're a defunct model. The new model should be one that mirrors the structure of the internet. Loosely linked. Dispersed power. Controlled by the users.

2. All real economics starts at the household and village level. The very word economics has this concept at the root of its very meaning.

3. All real wealth comes from the productivity of the land and the sea, from what we can mine from the ground, from the processes of turning those resources into useful products, and from those who provide useful services.

If I wasn't so tired I could lay out a few more of the fundamental assumptions that have arisen from our discussions as we develop our policy papers and national issues affiliates that deal in these important areas. The latest affiliate being developed along these line, by the way, is called "AIP Real Economics." I have high hopes for it.

Frankly, we have not had many discussions of the gold standard as yet. I'd be happy to hear your opinions in this matter. But, I'm certainly no fan of fractional reserve banking. It's a system predicated on debt...lending money into existence. One of the problems with that is that they lend the principal into existence, but not the interest that must be paid. This creates one certain outcome: someone is ultimately going to go broke. It's an inevitablity.

Anyhow, if I got anything wrong here, I apologize. Like I said, I'm wiped out tired. It was a stretch to find the mental energy just to type this.

In closing, I'm willing to listen. If you have ideas about how AIP can have the strongest, most sensible, most effective economic positions possible, we'd love your input.

We have several national conference calls per week that last several hours each with folks from all over the country. These matters, among many others, are topics for discussion. Join us some time.


29 posted on 02/22/2009 8:41:12 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Where every principled conservative belongs: http://aipnews.com/mxPage.asp?ID=3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The 17th Amendment says that when Senate vacancies occur, “the executive authority” of the affected 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.”

How bout we just REPEAL it..


30 posted on 02/22/2009 8:49:30 PM PST by JSDude1 (R(epublicans) In Name Only SUCK; D(emocrats) In Name Only are worth their weight..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nyconse

You’re thinking Short term, in the long run you’d end up with a much more conservative senate (meaning they’d want a difused governemtn where more power in the hands of the states, than the federal central government). It’s much easier to controll your state capital than Capital Hill!


31 posted on 02/22/2009 8:56:21 PM PST by JSDude1 (R(epublicans) In Name Only SUCK; D(emocrats) In Name Only are worth their weight..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1

You may have a point, but I don’t think it will ever happen...don’t 2/3 of the states have to ratify a change in the constitution?


32 posted on 02/22/2009 9:01:16 PM PST by nyconse (When you buy something, make an investment in your country. Buy American or bye bye America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: nyconse

There were some problems back in the day. The reason why the 17th Amendment was brought about was because some states had split houses and the senators were not being sent on time.

So instead of letting the states run their course like they were supposed to, the federal government decided to meddle and brought forth the amendment. Surprisingly the states GAVE away their leverage and power and ratified this monstrosity. Now we are paying for their “expedience” and “convenience”.

I want back the way the founders set us up...as a Republic where the states had their power. Can you just imagine the government we would have today? A state powered senate that was looking out for itself? A senate that could have blocked the myriad of laws that infringe on state’s rights?

If we had that today, these state resolutions concerning the 10th Amendment would not be necessary. The 10th would have teeth because the senators would be voting for their states, not for themselves.


33 posted on 02/22/2009 9:06:58 PM PST by MissouriConservative (If there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

That’s the problem with me. You’re a normal human being, and I’m a night owl. Hope you feel better tomorrow.

I support a return to a gold standard, but there are a few problems to be addressed in getting back to one.

1. Gold is currently around 1000 (fiat) dollars an ounce. We need to figure out what to do in order to deflate back to $35/oz. or $20.67/oz. or whatever Congress finds suitable without destroying our national economy.

2. We need to insure a steady domestic supply of gold, perhaps by ensuring that all gold mines are owned by U.S. companies, something that usually isn’t necessary in a given economic sector, IMO.

3. We have to prepare for shocks to the market somehow. For example, the IMF apparently holds about 3/4 of the world’s gold. Suppose they decide to dump gold onto the world market, thus effectively devaluing our currency?

Sleep tight.


34 posted on 02/22/2009 9:15:46 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Barack Obama: in your guts, you know he's nuts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1

That’s what I would do.


35 posted on 02/22/2009 9:16:31 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Barack Obama: in your guts, you know he's nuts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: nyconse

3/4 of states are needed to ratify. And don’t think that it’s necessarily impossible. Right now, about half of our states have resolutions in some stage of development in their legislatures asserting their state sovereignty under the 9th and 10th Amendments. It would be difficult not to see the efficacy of repealing the 17th Amendment to achieve this goal of asserting their sovereignty.


36 posted on 02/22/2009 9:19:57 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Barack Obama: in your guts, you know he's nuts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative; nyconse

As I understand it, the trigger leading to ratification was, admittedly, a Senate candidate from Illinois allegedly bribing a number of IL legislators to assure his appointment in 1912. However, you still need to balance the chances of that happening against returning to the states a potent mechanism by which they could reign in this runaway government.


37 posted on 02/22/2009 9:23:07 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Barack Obama: in your guts, you know he's nuts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative

Correct. The Senate was designed torepresent the states, by which the Constitution meant the legislatures of the states, since according to the republican ideology of the time, legislatures were the dominant over executive and judiciary. In most states, that remains the case. In Texas, for instance, the lieutenant government—the presiding officer of the Senate—has more real power than the governor.


38 posted on 02/22/2009 9:44:27 PM PST by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

“However, you still need to balance the chances of that happening against returning to the states a potent mechanism by which they could reign in this runaway government.”

That’s the part we need back. Unfortunately it will take a lot of work as we can see how many states are drooling over the stimulus money. It will take a great amount of grassroots work to regain control of the state governments and put them back into Conservative hands. Then the 17th can go away and we can regain control of the wayward child that is our federal government.


39 posted on 02/22/2009 9:47:48 PM PST by MissouriConservative (If there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

I long for the day when the 17th is repealed and the states take back what they freaking gave away 96 years ago. I sometimes wonder what was so “progressive” about them back then.


40 posted on 02/22/2009 9:53:06 PM PST by MissouriConservative (If there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; BillyBoy

Why the hell do you want corrupt state legislators to appoint Senators? I’d rather vote on it myself thanks.


41 posted on 02/23/2009 2:55:06 AM PST by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj; rabscuttle385; EternalVigilance

I don’t know if we should go to all the trouble of an amendment but I agree with Slimgold on this one. Punk ass governors shouldn’t get to hand out 2-year terms anymore.

Blago auctioned off a seat.

Frank Murkowsi appointed his baby girl to make up for not buying her that pony.

Roy Barnes put popular Zell Miller in a Republican seat creating the circumstances for the Jeffords switch.

Burris, Bennett and G(j)illibrand get 2 years in the Senate without having to be elected. All were chosen by a single man.


42 posted on 02/23/2009 2:58:32 AM PST by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative; RobbyS; BillyBoy

Take a step back from your idealism and take at look at who runs the state legislatures. In a majority of states it’s corrupt rats. Senators chosen by them wouldn’t “rein in” a damn thing people. You have an even shiftier group of asses ready to funnel money to their masters in the state capitals.


43 posted on 02/23/2009 3:03:18 AM PST by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative; Impy; Clintonfatigued; BillyBoy; AuH2ORepublican; NewRomeTacitus; wardaddy; ..

And if the 17th hadn’t been ratified, many Southern states would STILL have Democrat Senators. My state of TN wouldn’t have been able to elect a Republican for the first time until this past election... close to 140 years after the Reconstruction Republican Senator. AL, MS, AR, NC... they’d all still be Democrat (so Jesse Helms, Jeff Sessions, et al, would never have been elected). Yes, the upside is we’d have a solid block of Republicans from the Plains States (4 from the Dakotas, 2 from Nebraska), but many states where the GOP held on after they lost the legislatures would never have been able to have won (such as Al D’Amato in NY). What I found interesting, though, is that the numbers of members in the Senate wouldn’t be changed by all that much, just from different locales.

Without the 17th (with numbers reflecting that of the legislative majorities that would elect Senators at the election of the current Senators) and in (parenthesis), the actual current membership:
AL-2D (2R)
AK-2R (1D/1R)
AZ-2R (no change)
AR-2D (n/c)
CA-2D (n/c)
CO-2D (n/c)
CT-2D (1D/1ID)
DE-2D (n/c)
FL-2R (1D/1R)
GA-2R (n/c)
HI-2D (n/c)
ID-2R (n/c)
IL-2D (n/c)
IN-2R (1D/1R)
IA-1D/1R (n/c)
KS-2R (n/c)
KY-2D (2R)
LA-2D (1D/1R)
ME-2D (2R)
MD-2D (n/c)
MA-2D (n/c)
MI-2D (n/c)
MN-2D (1D/1 undecided)
MS-2D (2R)
MO-2R (1D/1R)
MT-1D/1R (2D)
NE-2R (1D/1R)
NV-2D (1D/1R)
NH-1D/1R (n/c)
NJ-2D (n/c)
NM-2D (n/c)
NY-2D (n/c)
NC-2D (1D/1R)
ND-2R (2D)
OH-2R (1D/1R)
OK-2R (n/c)
OR-1D/?* (2D)
PA-2R (1D/1R)
RI-2D (n/c)
SC-2R (n/c)
SD-2R (1D/1R)
TN-1D/1R (2R)
TX-2R (n/c)
UT-2R (n/c)
VT-2D (1D/1 Prog)
VA-2R (2D)
WA-2D (n/c)
WV-2D (n/c)
WI-2R (2D)
WY-2R (n/c)

*Oregon had an even number of total members of both parties in 2005 in the legislature, so the winner would be indeterminate.

So without the 17th, we’d only have 2 more members than we do now, not much of a gain (44R/55D/1 Unknown), and the issue would be that of ideology. I frankly think many of the Republicans would be more liberal and the Democrats from more Dem-leaning states would be just as liberal as they currently are, with perhaps only some of the Southern Dems slightly more moderate, but that’s not even a guarantee. Ultimately, I think had it not been ratified, it would be a net loss for Conservatives.


44 posted on 02/23/2009 4:32:30 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
While you're working to restore the intent of the Founders, consider increasing the number of Representatives.

The constitution mentions one representative for every 30,000 citizens. That would give us around 10,000 in the house.

We need this because:
- you can't lobby 5,000 people. No need for campaign finance reform
- They would only agreee on important things. it would limit government

Get to the root cause of the problem

45 posted on 02/23/2009 4:54:29 AM PST by FatherofFive (Islam is an EVIL like no other, and must be ERADICATED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1

“in the long run you’d end up with a much more conservative senate (meaning they’d want a difused governemtn where more power in the hands of the states, than the federal central government)”

What makes you think that? Democrats in state legislatures love federal power.


46 posted on 02/23/2009 5:33:31 AM PST by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: nyconse

The GOP majority in the Ohio Senate is greater than the rat edge in the House so the legislature would elect a Republican.


47 posted on 02/23/2009 5:36:05 AM PST by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

Such a system may actually help Republicans in say Alabama and Mississippi (I can’t believe the rats took back the state Senate in MS) in winning the state legislatures. I’m still against it though cause I like democracy.


48 posted on 02/23/2009 5:40:49 AM PST by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

Senate seats were regularly bought and sold prior to direct elections. Montana’s William Clark got caught and still managed to come back and buy a seat.


49 posted on 02/23/2009 5:52:43 AM PST by MARTIAL MONK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Impy

Given that so many counties of the USA, even today, are red, the states would be more conservative except for the one-man, one vote rule that the Supreme Court imposed on the states in the 1960s. That prevented the states from properly recognizing any political interests except population in drawing state senatorial districts. Given the inherent difficulty of getting an accurate census count in urban areas, and the dishonest activities of political machines and demagogic organizations like Acorn, this has taken away the ability of the states to prevent electiuns from being dominated by population blocs.


50 posted on 02/23/2009 7:20:24 AM PST by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

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.

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