- Joined
- May 30, 2007
- Messages
- 9,595
- Reaction score
- 2,739
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Prior to 1913, Members of the Senate were chosen by state legislatures to be the agents of those governments in Washington, D.C., much like ambassadors today at the United Nations. The framers’ legislative design was subtle, but ingenious: While a Member of the House would represent the interests of the people as citizens, a Senator would represent the very different interests of the people’s sovereign state governments. This structure embodied the original meaning of the term “separation of powers.” The legislature would domicile two distinct powers (the people and the states) to compete bill by bill for the direction and scope of the federal government.
The 17th Amendment allows the elections of senators. Apparently the reason for the 17th was to combat corruption, well as we have seen with some of the career senators that point seems to be moot. I just read this piece that makes a good point on how the way it used to be regarding them (the state legislator appointed them).
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_35/guest/39156-1.html
What do you think?
The 17th Amendment allows the elections of senators. Apparently the reason for the 17th was to combat corruption, well as we have seen with some of the career senators that point seems to be moot. I just read this piece that makes a good point on how the way it used to be regarding them (the state legislator appointed them).
Senate Vacancies Raise Questions of Framers’ Intentions - Roll Call
What do you think?
The 17th Amendment allows the elections of senators. Apparently the reason for the 17th was to combat corruption, well as we have seen with some of the career senators that point seems to be moot. I just read this piece that makes a good point on how the way it used to be regarding them (the state legislator appointed them).
Senate Vacancies Raise Questions of Framers’ Intentions - Roll Call
What do you think?
The 17th Amendment allows the elections of senators. Apparently the reason for the 17th was to combat corruption, well as we have seen with some of the career senators that point seems to be moot. I just read this piece that makes a good point on how the way it used to be regarding them (the state legislator appointed them).
Senate Vacancies Raise Questions of Framers’ Intentions - Roll Call
What do you think?
The 17th Amendment allows the elections of senators. Apparently the reason for the 17th was to combat corruption, well as we have seen with some of the career senators that point seems to be moot. I just read this piece that makes a good point on how the way it used to be regarding them (the state legislator appointed them).
Senate Vacancies Raise Questions of Framers’ Intentions - Roll Call
What do you think?
So you favor direct voting by the public to fill Congressional committee seats, chairmanships and so forth?I support the right of the people to pick their elected representatives on all levels of government. If anything the only thing that should happen is lengthy residency requirement laws to run for office to eliminate carpet bagging and to impose term limits, these things would eliminate corruption. After all we impose term limits for president so why should a senator or congressmen or any elected official be able to run for unlimited terms. Nor do we let foreign born citizens to be president( birther morons please save your conspiracies for the conspiracy forum section), so why shouldn't the same standard apply basically to everyone else wanting to run for office or at least a lengthy residency requirement.
So you favor direct voting by the public to fill Congressional committee seats, chairmanships and so forth?
This is only true if you can show that the change is for a "minor reason".I do not imagine anything would be gained by getting rid of the 17th amendment. The constitution is too valuable to change for minor reasons, and that is what this is.
This is only true if you can show that the change is for a "minor reason".
Oh. So your argument is entirely subjective.Since I don't see this change as accomplishing anything, then I think I can safely say that if I am right, this would be a minor change.
Oh. So your argument is entirely subjective.
10-4.
Since I don't see this change as accomplishing anything, then I think I can safely say that if I am right, this would be a minor change.
That's fine -- but then, your mere opinion is no more compelling than the opposite.Considering the thread is asking people's opinion on something, that should be a given.
That's fine -- but then, your mere opinion is no more compelling than the opposite.
Think about the subpar quality of many of the appointed senators...
I do not imagine anything would be gained by getting rid of the 17th amendment. The constitution is too valuable to change for minor reasons, and that is what this is.
A repeal of the 17th amendment would take alot of power away from lobbying interests.
so passing the 17th amendment was OK but removing it was not? bit of a disconnect in your logic there
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?