Some Tea Party Republicans start to make some moves to repeal the 17th amendment.

[Direckshun]

Amusing. Obviously this will get no where, but the GOP's extremism unearths itself yet again.

I don't get it -- why, exactly, is a Senator elected directly by the people less beholden to his/her state's interests?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20...amendment.html

Far-Thinking Georgia Republicans Want to Scrap the 17th Amendment
By David Weigel
Posted Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2013, at 2:54 PM

Georgia's legislature, now run by a Republican supermajority, has inched ahead on a resolution endorsing the repeal of the 17th Amendment. Honestly, I thought that fad died out sometime in 2011, but it's easy to forget that the 2012 election firmed up Republican control in red states, and that ideas like this have empowered sponsors. The rationale, from the bill text:

WHEREAS, 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; and

WHEREAS, the Seventeenth Amendment has resulted in a large federal government with power and control that cannot be checked by the states; and...

WHEREAS, since the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, the size and scope of the federal government has grown exponentially and severely weakened the powers held by the individual states and the people as acknowledged by the Tenth Amendment to theUnited States Constitution; and

WHEREAS, the United States Senate was designed to protect the rights and interests of the individual states, and the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment would help to prevent the many unfunded mandates and unconstitutional laws passed onto those states by the federal government.

Is any of this prevented by the direct election of senators? Sort of. If state legislatures were re-empowered to pick senators, there'd be no nettlesome Democrats from North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Alaska, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, or Michigan. The only states with Republican senators who wouldn't be there under the legislative-election system are New Hampshire and Maine. So, yes, this would make it easier to undo a few things.

[Garcia Bronco]

The Georgia Legislature can bitch all they want, but in the end the 17th Amendment will still be in place so this isn't going anywhere.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by patteeu

That makes sense to me.

I just hesitate to endorse it because it would be a massive change in our current system, and I don't think I understand or can anticipate those ramifications without researching and contemplating the effects.

[stevenidol]

Originally Posted by listopencil

I just hesitate to endorse it because it would be a massive change in our current system, and I don't think I understand or can anticipate those ramifications without researching and contemplating the effects.

Now the corporation can pay the state legislators directly and put their own guy in the senate instead of having to give money to someone else's campaign and hoping they get what they want.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by stevenidol

Now the corporation can pay the state legislators directly and put their own guy in the senate instead of having to give money to someone else's campaign and hoping they get what they want.

Yeah, bribery and peddling influence is always going to be attempted. Transparency in campaign financing and full disclosure of personal finance records for members of the House would be a good place to start.

[stevenidol]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Yeah, bribery and peddling influence is always going to be attempted. Transparency in campaign financing and full disclosure of personal finance records for members of the House would be a good place to start.

Completely agree.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by listopencil

One of the pros to repeal I was thinking of is that the Senate is set up to be the upper house, with (from my understanding) more power. The idea being that the Senate would be sort of a hand picked collection of politicians who were held in high esteem by their contemporaries, a think tank or a collection of wisdom from people with more of a long view on the issues of the day. That's a far cry from what I consider our Senate to be right now.

Thats a high intellectual bar to clear. I don't think our political parties will do anything but appoint partisans that will toe the party line.

[Taco John]

I think people electing Senators is a horrible idea. The House is supposed to represent the people, and the Senate is supposed to represent the states. By eliminating the power of the states in the senate, all we've effectively done is hand it over to billionaires. It no longer represents the states or the people.

The 17th amendment backfired. It's been a net loss. It was a terrible and short-sighted idea to begin with, and only gets worse as each year passes.

[BucEyedPea]

Plus the 17th was promoted as being less corrupt and it's been more so. Outside special interests of the state give money, pressure from the national media and other factions bear influence on them over their state's concerns. It shifted political power from the rural areas to the big cities too. If the state legislatures elected someone, they can be recalled at anytime if they don't represent the state's interests. That's a plus for the states.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by listopencil

One of the pros to repeal I was thinking of is that the Senate is set up to be the upper house, with (from my understanding) more power. The idea being that the Senate would be sort of a hand picked collection of politicians who were held in high esteem by their contemporaries, a think tank or a collection of wisdom from people with more of a long view on the issues of the day. That's a far cry from what I consider our Senate to be right now.

Dunno, if it means more power, as it is a co-equal branch but it was intended to be a more deliberative body. Yes, also to have more wisdom. More like what was once considered aristocracy class or noblemen that acted more wisely than the people's House as a check.

[BucEyedPea]

"Future historians, when they come to write the obituary of the United States, will note that we started out with the best system ever devised by man and willingly dismantled it for a bowl of federal porridge." ~ Charley Reese

The left likes it this way because they want that bowl of porridge.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Thats a high intellectual bar to clear. I don't think our political parties will do anything but appoint partisans that will toe the party line.

It's more of a check on partisanship. Since Senators would have to answer to their state legislature, as they did once, they would be above national special-interest groups, the media, and even political parties.


Madison — Federalist #10

The purpose of the Constitution, the original version ( give or take some Amendments) was to place restraints on "the violence of faction."

As we evolved away from it, we have more faction.