[Political Junkie Too]

The Senate has become a rogue political body, answerable to no one except monied special interests. It's time to enforce real campaign finance reform by eliminating 33 of the most expensive elections that occur every two years.

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.

-PJ

[Democratshavenobrains]

If the 17th amendment were ever repealed, the liberal bitching and whining about Republicans destroying democracy would be unrelenting.

[sourcery]

[onyx]

I haven't given it much thought, but on first glance I can't say that I disagree.

[thoughtomator]

Another option would be to make them actually filibuster rather than just bending over every time they say they will.

[ambrose]

how would things be better if the California legislature appointed Sheila Kuehl to the U.S. senate?

[The Bronze Titan]

The 17th Ammendment:

Amendment XVII

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, 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.


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.

[The Bronze Titan]

I would propose the following revision to the 17th Amendment:

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.

[auboy]

Count on my support and vote.

[Political Junkie Too]

Ping.

[Political Junkie Too]

The Elegant Campaign Finance Reform.

-PJ

[Cboldt]

What could motivate 2/3rds of the present Senators (or any group of future Senators) to propose a repeal of the 17th? My sense is that they like the system just the way it is.

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).

[rightcoast]

I think it's interesting to see what State Legislatures are controlled by what party, and how this would affect the makeup of the Senate. (Of course, this is a mere snapshot of state legislature party control as it exists right now, and any Constituional amendment would not be enacted for a while, and only a third of Senators are up for reelection every 2 years.)

The following states woud be affected:

Alabama -- State House and Senate are Democrat-controlled. The two current Republican Senators would face losing their seats.

Delaware -- State House is Republican-controlled. Therefore, one or both of the two current Democrat Senators could face losing their seats, depending on how Delaware's legislature chose to appoint its U.S. Senators.

Florida -- State House and Senate are Republican-controlled. The two current Democrat Senators would face losing their seats.

Georgia -- Both the state's U.S. Senators and State House & Senate are split Democrat/Republican, so it's unclear how that would affect Georgia's representation in the U.S. Senate.

Illinois -- State House and Senate are Democrat-controlled. The state's lone Republican Senator would face losing his seat.

Indiana -- Both the state's U.S. Senators and State House & Senate are split Democrat/Republican, so it's unclear how that would affect Indiana's representation in the U.S. Senate.

Iowa -- State House and Senate are Republican-controlled. The state's lone Democrat Senator would face losing his seat.

Kentucky -- State House is Democrat-controlled. Therefore, one or both of the two current Republican Senators could face losing their seats, depending on how Kentucky's legislature chose to appoint its U.S. Senators.

Louisiana -- State Senate is Republican-controlled. Therefore, one or both of the two current Democrat Senators could face losing their seats, depending on how Louisiana's legislature chose to appoint its U.S. Senators.

Maine -- State House & Senate are Democrat-controlled. The state's two Republican Senators would face losing their seats.

Michigan -- State House & Senate are Republican-controlled. The state's two Democrat Senators would face losing their seats.

Minnesota -- Both the state's U.S. Senators and State House & Senate are split Democrat/Republican, so it's unclear how that would affect Minnesota's representation in the U.S. Senate.

Mississippi -- State House is Democrat-controlled. Therefore, one or both of the state's Republican Senators could face losing their seats, depending on how Mississippi's legislature chose to appoint its U.S. Senators.

Montana -- State House & Senate are Republican-controlled. Therefore, the state's lone Democrat Senator would face losing his seat.

Nebraska -- State legislature (unicameral) is Republican-controlled. Therefore, the state's lone Democrat Senator would face losing his seat.

Nevada -- Both the state's U.S. Senators and State House & Senate are split Democrat/Republican, so it's unclear how that would affect Nevada's representation in the U.S. Senate.

New Mexico -- Both the State House & Senate are Democrat-controlled. Therefore, the state's lone Republican Senator would face losing his seat.

New York -- The State Senate is Republican-controlled. Therefore, one or both of the state's Democrat Senators could face losing their seats, depending on how New York's legislature chose to appoint its U.S. Senators.

North Carolina -- Both the state's U.S. Senators and State House & Senate are split Democrat/Republican, so it's unclear how that would affect North Carolina's representation in the U.S. Senate.

North Dakota -- Both the State House & Senate are Republican-controlled. Therefore, both of the state's Democrat Senators would face losing their seats.

Oklahoma -- Both the State House & Senate are Democrat-controlled. Therefore, both of the state's Republican Senators would face losing their seats.

Oregon -- Both the state's U.S. Senators and State House & Senate are split Democrat/Republican, so it's unclear how that would affect Oregon's representation in the U.S. Senate.

Rhode Island -- Both the State House & Senate are Democrat-controlled. Therefore, the lone Republican Senator would face losing his seat.

South Carolina -- Both the State House & Senate are Republican-controlled. Therefore, the state's lone Democrat Senator would face losing his seat.

South Dakota -- Both the State House & Senate are Republican-controlled. Therefore, both Democrat Senators would face losing their seats.

Tennessee -- Both the State House & Senate are Democrat-controlled. Therefore, both Republican Senators would face losing their seats.

Vermont -- The State House is Republican-controlled. Therefore, either the Democrat or Independent Senator could face losing their seats, depending on how Vermont's legislature chose to appoint its U.S. Senators.

Washington -- The State Senate is Republican-controlled. Therefore, one or both of the state's Democrat Senators could face losing their seats, depending on how Washington's legislature chose to appoint its U.S. Senators.

Wisconsin -- The State Assembly & Senate are both Republican-controlled. Therefore, both Democrat Senators would face losing their seats.

[judywillow]

One thing you might notice is this. Having senators elected by the state legislatures might eliminate much of the effect of vote manufacturing by the demnocrats since manufacturing votes is clearly most effective in statewide or nationwide elections.

One question people were asking in 2000 was how a state like Floriduh with a state legislature which is so overwhelmingly republican could even come close to voting for Algor for president. The answer near as I can tell is that the dems can manufacture all the votes they want in their own precincts and it won't keep the republicans from winning theirs. It's only in a statewide election that manufacturing votes really counts.

[rcocean]

Your thinking on this confuses me. Your solution will take power from the people and give it to the elite. And the elite in this country are liberal.

The liberal elite has done everything possible to take certain issues out of the hands of the people by using unelected judges. These judges are nominated by the president and approved by 51 senators, after which these unelected philosopher kings can overturn elections, outlaw abortion and do anything they wish. They are unaccountable to no one and have life time tenure. That is the problem.

Electing senators by State legislators will simply make the senate more unaccountable, elitist and unaccountable. That’s why we changed the constitution in 1913.

The founding founders were wary of democracy since they did not want a majority that had no property oppressing the minority that had property. In those days land was property and vice versa. We past that years ago. Today the millionaires and billionaires (look at Soros) are in favor of income distribution.

If you wish to control the senate, reduce it term from 6 years to 4, write in term limits, and make the filibuster unconstitutional.

[narses]

"chosen by the Legislature thereof"

Can a Governor veto that election? What if the legislative houses disagree?

[harpo11]

I'm thinking, the democrat senators are getting away with something that is entirely unprecedented and against the US Constitution, of course, but not likely, they may have conveniently forgotten they solemnly pledged to protect and uphold, so why doesn't President Bush do the same unprecedented thing and go down to the floor of the Senate and filibuster them with the "flick of his pen, the law of the land" and change their stupid senate rules.

Hey, didn't Lanny Davis say the same about his buddy, Clinton's love affair with Exec. Orders?