Posted on 02/17/2013 10:14:16 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
It is a matter of public record that the United States Senate is a terrible place where serious policy issues are ignored; routine votes are occasionally delayed over concerns about non-existent terrorist groups; and proverbial cans are proverbially kicked down the proverbial road of sadness, gridlock, and despair.
What's less clear is why the Senate is such a congress of louts. Is it the endless pressure to raise money? The never-ending campaign? The fact that Americans hold lots of substantive disagreements on important things and are themselves—it's been said—somewhat dysfunctional?
Actually, according to Georgia state Rep. Buzz Brockaway, the biggest problem with the Senate is that it's democratically elected. Brockaway, a Republican, has introduced a bill in the state legislature to repeal the 17th Amendment, which provides for the direct election of senators, and instead restore the responsibility of choosing members to state legislatures (as was the process until 1913).
The bill, HR 273, laments that "the Seventeenth Amendment has resulted in a large federal government with power and control that cannot be checked by the states," and suggests that "the original purpose of the United States Senate was to protect the sovereignty of the states from the federal government and to give each individual state government representation in the federal legislative branch of government."
If the bill passed, Georgia would be the first state to endorse repealing the 17th Amendment, but the idea has gained traction among conservatives over the last few decades. Texas Gov. Rick Perry supports it; so do GOP Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Jeff Flake of Arizona. (Republican Indiana Sen. candidate Richard Mourdock endorsed the idea during his campaign last year, before, in an ironic twist, losing the popular vote.) As Salon's Alex Seitz-Wald noted in 2012, conservatives blame the 17th Amendment for trampling over the rights of states by changing the constituency to which senators are accountable.
Of course, introducing a bill is the easy part. Getting voters to agree to give up their right to vote will probably be a tough sell.
Shhh ! You’ll upset the anti-17th diehards.
Looks as though you have been here before. I’m a newbie. Any advice?
The Senate has no legal recourse to refuse to admit the Senators elected by the State Legislatures either.
No controlling legal authority to refuse to seat them.
Don’t care what his name is, if he can get the votes.
I always viewed the 17th as the end of Federalism. Get it done, get rid of it.
Yes. If you never want to have a Conservative Senate again, repeal the 17th. One of the stupider ideas to be floated on FR in recent years... criminally stupid.
Absolutely not.
I don’t think that’s the case. Regardless, the state of government is a reflection of our collective consciousness - and that’s in a pretty sorry state right now.
I really think I misunderstood but please know fully I understand your thought on having a Conservative Senate could only come to be by repealing the 17th till or until we would be overrun with those making up the majority inside of each state becoming overwhelmingly takers instead of makers. Either way it may not matter, regrettably, if we Conservatives (here in the present) allow the takers to overrun us. And taking over our nation and states by the takers is being facilitated by those who want to make the takers rule the day and this land. Americans, in their fifties may live to see it. A prayer I do not live to see it. Thankfully I am beyond the fifties. I do not wish this upon any of our people should the takers rule the day and win. May each of us live in interesting times? If I had my way I prefer boredom. My apology for this rant.
Thank you for your response.
A party can effectively place its man in the Senate by telling the legisl00ters to vote for him, or lose funding for their next election campaigns.
No, you've misunderstood. Follow me here: If you want a left-wing, big government Senate for perpetuity with a large chunk of states NEVER electing a Republican again or anytime soon (those being CA,CO,CT,DE,HI,IL,ME,MD,MA,MN,NV,NH,NJ,NM,NY,OR,RI,VT,WA,WV) and the rest electing nothing but big-government liberal RINO types (think McCain, Chafee, Snowe, Collins, Kirk, et al), you will be absolutely in favor of repealing the 17th. The best chance to get a BETTER Senate is to come up with a method to implement on a state-by-state basis something similar to Utah that weeds out the fakes through a pre-primary process, instituting runoffs (no liberals winning primaries through a split vote where they get a plurality)and CLOSING primary elections to halt Democrat chicanery.
Fine, throw me in jail.
Like I said earlier up-thread, I would like this done, but only after the legisl00tures and Republican party are cleaned out. I don’t want a crony Senate either.
1. We have more corruption than we had then. The institution of a national income tax with the 16th Amendment gave the Congress all manner of nefarious powers to hand out indulgences to those who had lobbying firms to fight for their special treatment. This has now become manifest in the recent Obamacare legislation, environmental legislation, etc, etc.
The Founders’ intent was that the Senate represent the interest of the states and the House represent the interests of the people. One of the outgrowths of the 17th Amendment has been the craven buying of votes with populist legislation that imposes unfunded mandates upon the states, along with “one size fits all” legislation because the Senate is no longer accountable to the state legislatures that put the senators there.
2. They might still be a lapdog to their party, but in different ways than today. Today, the Senate is controlled by the highest-spending politicians in the nation short of the POTUS. We now have some senators spending $25 mil and up for their seats. I think that campaign spending would go down, and the influence of lobbying groups would not be as strong if they had to put their case in front of the state legislatures, who know quite well who they want in a senate seat and why.
3. You’re not missing anything. The populists who think that the GOP would lose the senate forever have their heads in their nether regions and have been ignoring the success of the GOP at the state level. Right now, I count 26 legislatures in GOP hands - which would mean 52 senators appointed by GOP-controlled state legislatures. That’s not some huge shift from where we are.
Further, there are five legislatures with split control. Maybe they end up sending one Democrat, one Republican to the senate.
With work, there are at least two states where the GOP could gain control of the entire state legislature (VA and KY), which would mean two more GOP-appointed senators - bringing the total to 56 senators, then add a couple for split state legislatures, and suddenly things don’t look so bad, do they?
The Founders had an idea: Balance of power. They also knew, without saying it too loudly, that most people are morons, what we now call “low information voters.” Letting the morons have too much power in their vote was a dangerous thing - and that’s why we’re a republic rather than a democracy.
I also suggest reading this thread from 10 days ago, which we extensively debated the subject.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2986688/posts
You’ll never get to the Founders’ vision on this one. It was tried and it didn’t work. There’s a reason that body degraded over the course of the 19th century that prompted the 17th to be passed. It also requires blind trust in our state legislators, and I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw ‘em.
There are more state legislatures with a Republican majority (29 Republican vs 20 Democrat) and it’s 2014 yet.
‘not 2014’ yet
Honestly ? I think it’s going to take a revolution to save this country (the old Jeffersonian line about refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots). The only alternative is splitting the country in two, with the leftists having their own government and enclaves and the Constitutional right having our own. Needless to say, it wouldn’t take long before the refugees from the Soviet States would start flooding in (much as how they leave their Marxist enclaves now after destroying them and ruin other places like locusts in wheat fields). They, of course, should never be let in. You crap your nest, YOU clean it up.
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.