Posted on 09/08/2020 3:37:45 PM PDT by maggief
Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution in an op-ed published Tuesday by The Wall Street Journal.
Proposed in 1912 and ratified by 36 state legislatures on April 8, 1913, the amendment required U.S. senators to be elected by popular votes in each state. Prior to its enactment, Article I of the Constitution mandated that each state legislature vote to send two senators to Washington.
Sasse’s op-ed, titled, “Make the Senate Great Again,” suggested several Senate reforms “aimed at promoting debate, not ending it.”
“What would the Founding Fathers think of America if they came back to life?” Sasse began. “Their eyes would surely bug out first at our technology and wealth. But I suspect they’d also be stunned by the deformed structure of our government. The Congress they envisioned is all but dead. The Senate in particular is supposed to be the place where Americans hammer out our biggest challenges with debate. That hasn’t happened for decades—and the rot is bipartisan.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
I understand the reasoning, but wouldn’t state legislatures pick farther left candidates?
Please please please!
Well, I like the idea, but the Senate will never do it.
The only way for it to happen is for a Convention Of States,
and too many people have a fear of such a thing happening.
So-
It ain’t gonna happen.
The House of Lords it ain’t, that’s for sure.
He should still be primaried.
Repeal the 17th Amendment? Wimmin didn’t need to vote anyways. barefoot, pregnant and go fix me a sammich.
Even more important would be term limits for all members of Congress.
6 two year terms for House members.
2 six year terms for Senators.
There is a LOT of old, dead wood in Congress.
we didn’t start out with a 2 party system.
You’re thinking of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote.
This is about the 17th.
But they’re related—both 17 and 19 are prime numbers.
if the senate would pass a budget and if the largesse of that budget was passed on to the states according to population like it is supposed to be, then the legislators will pick fiscally responsible senators.
make the states responsible for the pay and retirement of legislators as well... and housing...
It's not a bad idea. The Senate was intended to represent the states. Passage of this amendment just made The Senate superfluous and another version of The House. However, Sasse will be excoriated as wanting to disenfranchise voters and take power from the people. Additionally it's a nonstarter in The House and Senate as it would mean decimation of Dems in The Senate as senators would now be elected by state legislatures ... which are currently majority GOP.
“The Nebraska senator’s list of reforms also included abolishing standing committees, requiring senators to show up for debates, term limits, and requiring senators to live together in dorms when in Washington.”
I agree with all of it. The dorms would be interesting.
Exactly. Sasse is an idiot.
Depends on the legislature.
They would be shocked and appalled. And that is a huge understatement. Not just at how their government has evolved (devolved?!), but at the abasement of society in general.
LOL
For years I have been saying that everything started to go downhill with the 17A closely followed by the 19th.
Unless you term limit the STAFF and government employees, term limits for elected officials will just result in a revolving door of nameless puppets.
Introduce a new amendment to define term limits too while we’re at it. The FF never intended that we have Senators and Reps for life. And in some cases passing these ‘seats’ to family members.
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.
