Posted on 09/08/2020 3:37:45 PM PDT by maggief
I don’t think so, except in already far left leaning states anyway. In many areas it would balance the current imbalance where the super liberal cities end up representing the entire state, disenfranchising the more conservative suburbs, exurbs, small towns and rural areas. I think it’s a great idea.
Maybe this will sour freepers on the idea since they hate Sasse.
Seriously though, with what all that’s going on right now this is what this imbecile is writing an op-ed about? He needs to go back to mentally masturbating all day at a college or think tank.
He also wants Senators to live together in dorms. Fruitcake. Notice how he was behaving until he got renominated and has now started acting like anyone gives a damn what he thinks again? And is he trolling with that article title “Make the Senate great again?”
The problem with the Senate is
A) The democrats, waaaaaaaaaay too many of those,
B) The RINOs
C) The “conservatives” like Sasse who put grey popoun on their pop tarts
And process changes won’t do a damn thing to change that, whether it’s term limits, ending direct elections (Jesus, campaign on this and see where it gets you) or having summer camp with Chuck Schumer, sitting around in your undies telling ghost stories.
The Founders would wonder why the democrats and half the Republicans haven’t been hung, not why they don’t get along better.
Correct: Term limits sound good but the reality is they don't work at all. In fact, in most every case I'm aware of the corruption only gets worse as the office holder is literally just a puppet and no one knows who exactly is controlling the strings and there is zero accountability.
Repealing the 17th on the other hand would be very effective at restoring our system to a representative republic. As it is now the states have zero representation which ultimately transfers all power to the federal government.
YES. And the lobbyists.
This would restore representative government to the states. As it is now urban areas elect senators and rural areas get screwed.
So few people in the country understand the concept of “states” in this republic, no one will ever repeal the 17th.
The House was for the People. The Senate is for the states.
It’s simple. But people are intellectually lazy.
—I have always liked that idea—a dorm room equivalent to what a 2nd lieutenant can have—and forbid ownership in any real estate within a hundred miles of D. C.—
I'm not sure where you get that idea. Many state legislatures are Republican controlled. That is not the point however. Repealing the 17th would mean the states senators would be beholden ONLY to the state in which they hold the seat. They could not be bought by big corporations and check writers from anywhere in the country. As it is right now senators are beholden to WHOEVER writes the big checks as that is how they finance their campaign and get elected. When they are appointed by the state legislators outside money little to no influence on who holds the seat. So if a senator wants to stay in office he actually has to represent the state who appointed him, not due the bidding for google or china or drug companies or whoever.
Mark Levin wants this. Several years ago, in fact
Exactly. Every interest group on the planet will want a say in the matter.
Yes we actually do because we choose those legislators on a very local basis. We don't have to guess that this is better because we did it this way for over half the time we have been a nation. It worked as it was intended. Power transferred from the states to the federal government when the 17th was passed. That's when the system was broken and the republic really ceased being a republic.
You want a representative republic of the fifty states? Repeal the 17th amendment is the answer.
I think we should allow members of Congress to serve more than the term limits you suggest.
However, in order to do so they should be required to walk through every inch of their district with no bodyguards after midnight....
If they survive, they can run!
;-)
State governments appointing the Senators was not universal before the Seventeenth Amendment IIRC.
And I have a hard time imagining anyone further left than people such as Sanders, Schumer and the like.
Could be that what’s needed is an electoral college for Senate candidates, reflecting the broader makeup of the state rather than its biggest population centers. And their concern has to be stipulated as representing the state’s government in DC rather than lobbyists as they (mostly) do right now.
Wrong amendment...
Doesn’t like facing the voters
So the slime pits that are so many of the state legislatures—TO THE RESCUE! Who needs accountability? We need more entrenched a$$holes. Government of the People by the entrenched a$$holes and for the entrenched a$$holes must not perish from the earth.
Term limits yesterday!
Fine, let a Madigan of IL or the CA state legislature choose your Senator then.
Put on sackcloth and ashes. He’s a Republican.
Hi. I hope you are doing well.
“Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment...”
Brilliant!
Now up, the 16th amendment.
5.56mm
The other thing that came with this was the 18th - Prohibition. And I am not sure which was stupider, the 17th or the 18th, but women pushed all three. Women should have the right to vote, but lack of foresight isn't just a male thing.
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.