Posted on 06/25/2010 5:19:09 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Delaware officially ratifies Amendment 17 of the U.S. Constitution that provides for the popular election of U.S. Senators.
98 years ago, several states had already ratified the amendment, making it a part of the Constitution, so the 45th General Assembly apparently felt no need to do so.
But the 145th General Assembly put their ceremonial stamp on it...
(Excerpt) Read more at wdel.com ...
sad
one of the best things for this country would be to rescind he 17th and let the State legislators choose their Senators .
No, it wouldn’t.
Yes it would.
You would only ensure many of our states would never send a Republican to the Senate for the forseeable future. A VERY bad move.
Here’s another discussion of one of your favorite subjects...
I, for one, prefer to keep government as close to the States as possible.
That's precisely what it was in the era prior to this Amendment. This notion that somehow the Senate membership would improve dramatically with its repeal is pure pie-in-the-sky fantasy. I wouldn't WANT my state legislators choosing my Senators. It's bad enough I'm disenfranchised with respect to my legislative members and my Congressional district (one party for 136 years, not GOP), but take my vote away for U.S. Senate, and my disenfranchisement will be complete for both Congress and the state legislature.
You are not disenfranchised.
You still vote for the House members.
But the states - as political entities - have been disenfranchised.
I am in a gerrymandered State House district where no Republicans run (and has not elected one since at least the Reconstruction era) and is held by a crook and a demogogue.
I am in a Justice Department/Civil Rights Act-mandated racist State Senate district where no Republicans run and is also held by a demogogue.
I am in a gerrymandered U.S. House district designed to keep a Democrat in place (which it has since 1874), and no Republican usually gets over 1/3rd of the vote.
I have NO say in my viewpoint on issues with respect to the legislature or Congress, and you guys want to take my only vote away with respect to our Senators where I do have influence. To that I say “Hell, No !”
History proves you wrong. The effort to establish a fascist/socialist state in America didn’t get started in earnest until the direct election of senators. The direct election of senators allowed every horses ass across the country to influence every state’s senator. Before that, a senator pledged his fealty to his state, not some leftist cause.
Before 1917, the red flag waving proto-marxists were weak and ineffectual in this country.
Of course go ahead and give us examples of how Marxism was sweeping across the US before the 17th amendment. I’ll wait for your answer while you scrounge for answers amongst various revisionist historians.
Please, leftists were afoot in the 19th century, they didn’t magically appear with the 17th Amendment. The hijacking of the Democrats was in full bloom in the 1890s.
It’s interesting how you guys ignore what the makeup of today’s legislatures would do with respect to what would be sitting in the Senate today. You’d have bosses making sure “their people” were infested in the legislatures to keep electing them, and in those states where Republicans haven’t elected majorities in decades (if not since the 19th century, as mine was until 2009) you’d have these thugs in for eons. My state would’ve had the Gore family ensconced in the Senate for 70 years without interruption, perhaps longer.
You guys live in fantasy land if you think the Senate would improve in its demeanor, ethics, character, or makeup with its repeal. It would be even worse than it is now. At least we have a fighting chance to elect people in anti-GOP states. If Scott Brown had to run for the Senate via the imbeciles on Beacon Hill, given the makeup of the MA General Court, he’d have lost 90%-10%, because the members of the legislature from the GOP could caucus in a bathroom stall.
Wow...I thought Senators are all appointed..."until the Special Election..."
;-)
For what it is worth, that very phrase, the Senate as a "millionaires club", originated in the 1890s, well before the direct election of senators.
Indeed, at the Senate's own website, you have this recounting of the Senate under Vice President Morton (1889-1893):
The Businessman's Cabinet and the Millionaires' Club Just as Harrison's cabinet was called the "businessman's cabinet" for its inclusion of Wanamaker and the Vermont marble baron Redfield Proctor, the Senate over which Vice President Morton presided was dubbed a "millionaires' club." In the late nineteenth century, businessmen had steadily gained control over both the Republican and Democratic parties and used their political positions to advance their economic interests. Senators became identified as spokesmen for railroads, timber, mining, and other industries. As California Senator George Hearst, who had made his millions in mining, proclaimed: "the members of the Senate are the survivors of the fittest." It seemed appropriate, therefore, that the Senate's presiding officer should be one of the nation's most prominent bankers.
(Trivia note: not only was Vice President Morton one of the nation's most prominent bankers, but the infamous community of Morton Grove was named in honor of Vice President Morton, albeit that naming was many years before he served as vice president.)
Just another reason why DE’s state government is as useless as &$&# on a boar hog.
Just another reason why DE’s state government is as useless as &$&# on a boar hog.
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.