Full Version: Replace the 17th Amendment?
There are complaints that the federal government is too centralized, and that the States governments are not having a effective voice in the federal government. Repealing the 17th Amendment is one proposed method to remedy these complaints; but when an amendment is replaced, it is replaced by another amendment. This topic asks the if it should be replaced by this proposed amendment, with or with modifications.
Topics:
Topics:
- Should we replace the 17th Amendment with the proposed amendment? With modifications (please list)? Why?
- What are the the pros and cons of replacing the 17th Amendment with the proposed amendment above? With the modifications previously stated before your post (please state which ones)? With modifications you suggested?
- How could the proposed amendment be modified to be a good compromise between people that like the 17th Amendment and those that don't?
- Please read the proposed amendment (near bottom of page) before posting.
- Edited to add: I kind of messed up the poll question; "Shoule" is suposed to be "Should".
1. Should we replace the 17th Amendment with the proposed amendment? With modifications (please list)? Why?
No. This won't give more power to the people and has the potential to take more power from us. I don't care what my state's elected officials think, they're corporate puppets just like the President. Also, saying that the state isn't represented because they people of the state and not the legislator elect the Senate is giving a definition to "State" that excludes the people. State is a geographical term and a political term. Geography can't vote. The residents of a State, in a nation that is supposed to reverence "Power to the People" are that state. If we say the legislature is the State, we are saying that a handful of people, albiet elected by the citizens, are better able to represent the State than the citizens. In which case, what good was electing them in the first place? Shouldn't they be elected for life and allowed to choose their successors, since they're better able to represent the state than the citizens who elected them the first time? That makes no sense. When the people of a state elect a representative into any branch, they represent the people of that State. Therefore, they represent the State.
2. What are the the pros and cons of replacing the 17th Amendment with the proposed amendment above? With the modifications previously stated before your post (please state which ones)? With modifications you suggested?
I don't see any pros.
3. How could the proposed amendment be modified to be a good compromise between people that like the 17th Amendment and those that don't?
It can't be. But there is one thing we could do: We could amend our state constitutions so that people have direct voting on all major issues, recall, and elections paid for with public instead of private money. Then we can uncouple our states from the federal government a little at a time, gradually phasing out centralized power.
Once State legislators are accountable to the people, they can meet with each other to draft proposals. And then they can bring the proposals home (electronically or by other means) and we, the people, can vote on the proposals. If proposals become too out of hand, and officials clearly obstructionist, we can get rid of the proposers and see if we can get some halfway bright, honest legislators in office.
So change this:
Section Four. Senators are subject to removal by the State Legislature. Removal of a Senator requires a majority of each House of the State Legislature.
To this:
Section One:
Part I. All elections will be funded with public money. No person or organization may contribute campaign funds or financial assistance of any kind to a political candidate. A Political Public Broadcasting System will air commercials, interviews, and statements of candidates on a city by city and state by state level and at the national level. No other network may air candidates' statements, ads, or interviews.
Part II. Candidates will have equal airtime. Candidates will have access to the network through national and state petitions. The top ten candidates in any election will be eligible for this airtime. Funding will be set for local, state, and national level by a committee, which shall be accountable to the people and accountable to election laws (with severe penalties for violation).
Part III. Any candidate who does not qualify for PPBS airtime based on petition signatures may spend the amount of money that will give him or her airtime and ad quality equal to that which is provided by the PPBS network to candidates in the top ten, but the total minutes of airtime cannot exceed that which each candidate in the top ten has, and the quality of programming/advertising must not be significantly better (i.e., a candidate cannot partner with a network that provides material support in excess of what the funds will ordinarily pay for).
Part IV. A set amount of funds may be used by any candidate before and during the collecting of signatures, however, this amount may not exceed what a reasonably well-organized grass roots group could collect from ordinary citizens. Candidates and parties may exhort citizens to sign petitions through websites, flyers, and personal appearances only. No television ads, radio ads (except internet radio), or press releases into the mainstream media will be permitted. Parties may only run one candidate in each of the election venues, local/city/county, State, and Federal.
Part V: Violations will result in a candidate's disqualification from holding public office for a period of years to life, depending on whether the candidate was, or should have been, aware of violations. However, in the event a canidate's campaign was sabotaged by deliberate violations unbeknownst to the candidate, and this is later discovered, the candidate will be eligible to run again immediately. If sabotage is discovered in time, the candidate shall remain eligible to run in the election he or she would otherwise be disqualified from. If a candidate or any member of a campaign, or any member of a media outlet, or any citizen, is found guilty of carrying out or of endorsing/being aware of a violation of campaign law, he or she is subject to not less than 10 years in prison and disbarment for life from participating in any future campaign in the capacity of candidate, party member, support staff, or in the field of campaign media. Saboteurs who violate election law to disqualify a candidate will receive double the prison sentence, as well as being prohibited from participating in future campaigns, either as a campaign media employee, a candidate, a party member, or a staffer.
Section Two:
Only in the case of civil rights (i.e. violations of the Bill of Rights and of laws prohibiting servitude and discrimination, as well as in cases in which States permit corporations, the military, or their agents to endanger life and health with pollutants, or with the willful or negligent disintigration of basic services such as roads and electricity), commerce, and limited taxation will the federal government have the power to demand States alter policy or intervene to protect their citizens. In all other instances, including laws, sentencing, restrictions on business and federal government activities (for example, the disposal of federal hazardous waste), the State's people, directly or through their elected representatives, are sovereign.
Section Three:
Part I. Citizens shall have the right to vote allocation of the limited federal taxes and shall have the right to vote upon the amount of taxes payable to the State and on the allocation of these taxes. In the case of federal taxation, an even baseline will go to each project. For example, 2% to schools, 2% to the military, and 2% to healthcare, and so on, until a total of less than 50% is reached for each state and for the federal government. When a citizen receives his or her tax forms, the citizen may then allocate the remaining 50% as he or she wishes, without restriction of any kind.
Part II. Citizens shall have the right to vote yearly on what programs to keep and what to end and will have the right to vote on new programs and on whether these programs should be at the state or the federal level (if at federal, the program must be within bounds of the limited budget, as taxes cannot be raised to accomodate new programs, but can only rise with inflation).
Part III. Committees may be elected at the state and federal level to propose, draw up, and implement new programs. These committee members will be subject to the same election laws and accountability laws as representatives and will eventually replace representatives, save for ambassadors and other representatives or symbols the people deem it necessary or convenient to keep. Committees are at all times to be restricted to well-defined duties and State committees may only collaborate with the committees of other States and/or with Federal committees (who are similarily restricted), when their electors grant permission, and then only on those issues where permission for collaboration has been granted.
Section Four:
All representatives, including the President of the United States, are subject to removal by the citizens. Removal of a representative requires a majority vote by the citizens of the representative's state, or, in the case of a Presidential recall, by a majority of United States citizens.
Now that would be a series of amendments I could wholly endorse, although there are rough edges here and there.
No. This won't give more power to the people and has the potential to take more power from us. I don't care what my state's elected officials think, they're corporate puppets just like the President. Also, saying that the state isn't represented because they people of the state and not the legislator elect the Senate is giving a definition to "State" that excludes the people. State is a geographical term and a political term. Geography can't vote. The residents of a State, in a nation that is supposed to reverence "Power to the People" are that state. If we say the legislature is the State, we are saying that a handful of people, albiet elected by the citizens, are better able to represent the State than the citizens. In which case, what good was electing them in the first place? Shouldn't they be elected for life and allowed to choose their successors, since they're better able to represent the state than the citizens who elected them the first time? That makes no sense. When the people of a state elect a representative into any branch, they represent the people of that State. Therefore, they represent the State.
2. What are the the pros and cons of replacing the 17th Amendment with the proposed amendment above? With the modifications previously stated before your post (please state which ones)? With modifications you suggested?
I don't see any pros.
3. How could the proposed amendment be modified to be a good compromise between people that like the 17th Amendment and those that don't?
It can't be. But there is one thing we could do: We could amend our state constitutions so that people have direct voting on all major issues, recall, and elections paid for with public instead of private money. Then we can uncouple our states from the federal government a little at a time, gradually phasing out centralized power.
Once State legislators are accountable to the people, they can meet with each other to draft proposals. And then they can bring the proposals home (electronically or by other means) and we, the people, can vote on the proposals. If proposals become too out of hand, and officials clearly obstructionist, we can get rid of the proposers and see if we can get some halfway bright, honest legislators in office.
So change this:
Section Four. Senators are subject to removal by the State Legislature. Removal of a Senator requires a majority of each House of the State Legislature.
To this:
Section One:
Part I. All elections will be funded with public money. No person or organization may contribute campaign funds or financial assistance of any kind to a political candidate. A Political Public Broadcasting System will air commercials, interviews, and statements of candidates on a city by city and state by state level and at the national level. No other network may air candidates' statements, ads, or interviews.
Part II. Candidates will have equal airtime. Candidates will have access to the network through national and state petitions. The top ten candidates in any election will be eligible for this airtime. Funding will be set for local, state, and national level by a committee, which shall be accountable to the people and accountable to election laws (with severe penalties for violation).
Part III. Any candidate who does not qualify for PPBS airtime based on petition signatures may spend the amount of money that will give him or her airtime and ad quality equal to that which is provided by the PPBS network to candidates in the top ten, but the total minutes of airtime cannot exceed that which each candidate in the top ten has, and the quality of programming/advertising must not be significantly better (i.e., a candidate cannot partner with a network that provides material support in excess of what the funds will ordinarily pay for).
Part IV. A set amount of funds may be used by any candidate before and during the collecting of signatures, however, this amount may not exceed what a reasonably well-organized grass roots group could collect from ordinary citizens. Candidates and parties may exhort citizens to sign petitions through websites, flyers, and personal appearances only. No television ads, radio ads (except internet radio), or press releases into the mainstream media will be permitted. Parties may only run one candidate in each of the election venues, local/city/county, State, and Federal.
Part V: Violations will result in a candidate's disqualification from holding public office for a period of years to life, depending on whether the candidate was, or should have been, aware of violations. However, in the event a canidate's campaign was sabotaged by deliberate violations unbeknownst to the candidate, and this is later discovered, the candidate will be eligible to run again immediately. If sabotage is discovered in time, the candidate shall remain eligible to run in the election he or she would otherwise be disqualified from. If a candidate or any member of a campaign, or any member of a media outlet, or any citizen, is found guilty of carrying out or of endorsing/being aware of a violation of campaign law, he or she is subject to not less than 10 years in prison and disbarment for life from participating in any future campaign in the capacity of candidate, party member, support staff, or in the field of campaign media. Saboteurs who violate election law to disqualify a candidate will receive double the prison sentence, as well as being prohibited from participating in future campaigns, either as a campaign media employee, a candidate, a party member, or a staffer.
Section Two:
Only in the case of civil rights (i.e. violations of the Bill of Rights and of laws prohibiting servitude and discrimination, as well as in cases in which States permit corporations, the military, or their agents to endanger life and health with pollutants, or with the willful or negligent disintigration of basic services such as roads and electricity), commerce, and limited taxation will the federal government have the power to demand States alter policy or intervene to protect their citizens. In all other instances, including laws, sentencing, restrictions on business and federal government activities (for example, the disposal of federal hazardous waste), the State's people, directly or through their elected representatives, are sovereign.
Section Three:
Part I. Citizens shall have the right to vote allocation of the limited federal taxes and shall have the right to vote upon the amount of taxes payable to the State and on the allocation of these taxes. In the case of federal taxation, an even baseline will go to each project. For example, 2% to schools, 2% to the military, and 2% to healthcare, and so on, until a total of less than 50% is reached for each state and for the federal government. When a citizen receives his or her tax forms, the citizen may then allocate the remaining 50% as he or she wishes, without restriction of any kind.
Part II. Citizens shall have the right to vote yearly on what programs to keep and what to end and will have the right to vote on new programs and on whether these programs should be at the state or the federal level (if at federal, the program must be within bounds of the limited budget, as taxes cannot be raised to accomodate new programs, but can only rise with inflation).
Part III. Committees may be elected at the state and federal level to propose, draw up, and implement new programs. These committee members will be subject to the same election laws and accountability laws as representatives and will eventually replace representatives, save for ambassadors and other representatives or symbols the people deem it necessary or convenient to keep. Committees are at all times to be restricted to well-defined duties and State committees may only collaborate with the committees of other States and/or with Federal committees (who are similarily restricted), when their electors grant permission, and then only on those issues where permission for collaboration has been granted.
Section Four:
All representatives, including the President of the United States, are subject to removal by the citizens. Removal of a representative requires a majority vote by the citizens of the representative's state, or, in the case of a Presidential recall, by a majority of United States citizens.
Now that would be a series of amendments I could wholly endorse, although there are rough edges here and there.
QUOTE(Myself)
1. Should we replace the 17th Amendment with the proposed amendment? With modifications (please list)? Why?
Yes, with modifications. Why?
I do support a similar amendment to this because of over centralization. There are another reasons why I think this, but I will let a couple of the Federalist Papers speak for me (emphases added).
QUOTE(Federalist Paper 51)
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
[....]
In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.
[....]
In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.
[....]
In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.
[....]
In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.
(source)
QUOTE(ralou)
When the people of a state elect a representative into any branch, they represent the people of that State. Therefore, they represent the State. 
Quite true, but the State Governments and The Federal Government need ways to balance the power of each other. The Federal Government has a check on the Several State Governments because of the supremacy clause of the Constitution, but the State governments effectively lost their check on the Federal Government because of the 17th Amendment. The Selection of Senators by the State Legislatures provided a link between the Federal Government and the Several State Governments (as stated in Federalist Paper 62). Also, it provided the State Governments a check on the Federal Government's power -- adding another auxiliary precaution on government usurpation.QUOTE(Federalist Paper 62)
It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State Governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.
(source)
QUOTE(Myself)
3. How could the proposed amendment be modified to be a good compromise between people that like the 17th Amendment and those that don't?
The proposed amendment should be modified to allow the States (therefore the people thereof) to choose what method of selection for their Senators for respective States: i.e. Direct Election, Appointment by Legislature, or Merit Method; but selection by hereditary should be explicitly excluded.
However, the link between the Federal Government and the State Governments should be maintained even if the State choses to directly elect their Senators. I submit that Section 4 of the proposed amendment does this.
QUOTE
Section Three. Among the duties of each Senator is the primary duty to represent the government of their State, and in particular, their State's Legislature, in the Senate. For the purpose of maintaining communications with its Senators, each State Legislature shall establish a liaison committee and shall specify the duties, procedures, and method of appointment of that committee. This committee shall work with its United States Senators in evaluating the impact of federal legislation on their State. All legislation proposed by Congress, and all treaties proposed, shall be submitted to each State's liaison committee.
(source)
Furthermore, the State (the people thereof) should be able to choose how to remove the Senators if need be: i.e. by direct recall (ex. former California Governor Gray Davis) and/or by the State legislature.
QUOTE(Myself)
2. What are the the pros and cons of replacing the 17th Amendment with the proposed amendment above? With the modifications previously stated before your post (please state which ones)? With modifications you suggested?
One of the advantages of modifications that I have proposed is that the Several States will get the chance to experiment on selection and removal methods to find out what works best for each respectively. The down side is the inconstancy of selection methods.The advantage of Section 3 of the proposed amendment is stated below.
QUOTE
[The state liaison committee] is intended as a communications link and advisory body to the state legislature and not as a decision-maker for the state legislature. It should function during periods when the state legislature is not in session so those legislators can be alerted when critical federal action is taking place.
I would further add that the liaison committee is not intended to be a decision-maker for the people of the state, also.(source)
Ralou, interesting suggestion you have there, but what your suggestion is best debated on another topic because of the scope of it. The modifications should be minor because we don't what to have a run-away tread. If we do, we'll have moderators "knocking at the door"
.
Much too elaborate for my taste, and goes too far in micromanaging how the states manage their relationships with their Senators. I'd say use just the first two sections, which would restore the status quo ante, which IMHO is all that's needed.
QUOTE(Izdaari @ Apr 23 2005, 06:04 PM)
Much too elaborate for my taste, and goes too far in micromanaging how the states manage their relationships with their Senators. I'd say use just the first two sections, which would restore the status quo ante, which IMHO is all that's needed.
I agree, but suggest that only Section 1 is needed. When the 17th is repealed, the section in the Constitution calling for state legislature appointment, comes back into force. This does what Section 2 would have done.
This lets the state legislature select its two Senators in ANY way they want. And it also lets the legislatures recall or fire them, in any way they want.
I suggest the legislatures be the body that recalls or fires Senators. Otherwise some states (such as California) would have endless successions of appointments by the legislature followed by a recall by popular referendum; followed by another appointment by legislature and an immediate recall by the people, over and over again.
But my above suggestion is strictly that: a SUGGESTION. As I said, it's important that each state choose its own methods for both appointment and recall. If I don't like the methods they choose, tough - I can campaign against the legislators who did it; or move out of the state.
The states as states, have been without representation in the Federal government for far too long, and the results have been dreadful. Popularly elected Senators have been confirming judges who propose to give the people endless goodies, from "affirmative action" to welfare to banning political speech that might offend them. And these have all bee flatly unconstitutional. We need a more Republican form of government - the same one the Framers first designed. No one has yet found a better one, even today.
QUOTE(crashfourit @ Apr 23 2005, 07:32 PM)
QUOTE(Myself)
1. Should we replace the 17th Amendment with the proposed amendment? With modifications (please list)? Why?
Yes, with modifications. Why?
I do support a similar amendment to this because of over centralization. There are another reasons why I think this, but I will let a couple of the Federalist Papers speak for me (emphases added).
QUOTE(Federalist Paper 51)
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
[....]
In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.
[....]
In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.
[....]
In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.
[....]
In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.
(source)
QUOTE(ralou)
When the people of a state elect a representative into any branch, they represent the people of that State. Therefore, they represent the State.
Quite true, but the State Governments and The Federal Government need ways to balance the power of each other. The Federal Government has a check on the Several State Governments because of the supremacy clause of the Constitution, but the State governments effectively lost their check on the Federal Government because of the 17th Amendment. The Selection of Senators by the State Legislatures provided a link between the Federal Government and the Several State Governments (as stated in Federalist Paper 62). Also, it provided the State Governments a check on the Federal Government's power -- adding another auxiliary precaution on government usurpation.QUOTE(Federalist Paper 62)
It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State Governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.
(source)
QUOTE(Myself)
3. How could the proposed amendment be modified to be a good compromise between people that like the 17th Amendment and those that don't?
The proposed amendment should be modified to allow the States (therefore the people thereof) to choose what method of selection for their Senators for respective States: i.e. Direct Election, Appointment by Legislature, or Merit Method; but selection by hereditary should be explicitly excluded.
However, the link between the Federal Government and the State Governments should be maintained even if the State choses to directly elect their Senators. I submit that Section 4 of the proposed amendment does this.
QUOTE
Section Three. Among the duties of each Senator is the primary duty to represent the government of their State, and in particular, their State's Legislature, in the Senate. For the purpose of maintaining communications with its Senators, each State Legislature shall establish a liaison committee and shall specify the duties, procedures, and method of appointment of that committee. This committee shall work with its United States Senators in evaluating the impact of federal legislation on their State. All legislation proposed by Congress, and all treaties proposed, shall be submitted to each State's liaison committee.
(source)
Furthermore, the State (the people thereof) should be able to choose how to remove the Senators if need be: i.e. by direct recall (ex. former California Governor Gray Davis) and/or by the State legislature.
QUOTE(Myself)
2. What are the the pros and cons of replacing the 17th Amendment with the proposed amendment above? With the modifications previously stated before your post (please state which ones)? With modifications you suggested?
One of the advantages of modifications that I have proposed is that the Several States will get the chance to experiment on selection and removal methods to find out what works best for each respectively. The down side is the inconstancy of selection methods.The advantage of Section 3 of the proposed amendment is stated below.
QUOTE
[The state liaison committee] is intended as a communications link and advisory body to the state legislature and not as a decision-maker for the state legislature. It should function during periods when the state legislature is not in session so those legislators can be alerted when critical federal action is taking place.
I would further add that the liaison committee is not intended to be a decision-maker for the people of the state, also.(source)
Ralou, interesting suggestion you have there, but what your suggestion is best debated on another topic because of the scope of it. The modifications should be minor because we don't what to have a run-away tread. If we do, we'll have moderators "knocking at the door"
.I'm afraid I got a bit carried away. I've afflicted professors with term papers similarly long and off topic!
This is my first on this board, so be gentle with me, folks.
I am rather surprised that a federal takeover of airport security has prompted a call for a change to the U.S. Constitution. Exactly how would the appointment of people to the U.S. Senate by state legislatures have prevented the federal government from its takeover at the airports? I don't see the direct connection, and I wouldn't change the Constitution even if there was.
I'm a Californian, whose legislature is completely useless. At least I can vote on referenda and on the composition of my Congressional delegation.
I am rather surprised that a federal takeover of airport security has prompted a call for a change to the U.S. Constitution. Exactly how would the appointment of people to the U.S. Senate by state legislatures have prevented the federal government from its takeover at the airports? I don't see the direct connection, and I wouldn't change the Constitution even if there was.
I'm a Californian, whose legislature is completely useless. At least I can vote on referenda and on the composition of my Congressional delegation.
[*]Should we replace the 17th Amendment with the proposed amendment? With modifications (please list)? Why?
No. I do not see how making Senators beholden to the State legislators in any way improves the representation of the state in the federal government. The Senator represents the state. He does so regardless of whether he was elected by the people or appointed by the state legislature.
My primary argument against this amendment is that it lessens the power of the people and places it in the hands of state legislators. Yes, the state legislators represent the people, but I see no reason to add that level of indirection. Let the people decide.
No. I do not see how making Senators beholden to the State legislators in any way improves the representation of the state in the federal government. The Senator represents the state. He does so regardless of whether he was elected by the people or appointed by the state legislature.
My primary argument against this amendment is that it lessens the power of the people and places it in the hands of state legislators. Yes, the state legislators represent the people, but I see no reason to add that level of indirection. Let the people decide.
QUOTE(crashfourit @ Apr 23 2005, 06:32 PM)
The proposed amendment should be modified to allow the States (therefore the people thereof) to choose what method of selection for their Senators for respective States: i.e. Direct Election, Appointment by Legislature, or Merit Method; but selection by hereditary should be explicitly excluded.
However, the link between the Federal Government and the State Governments should be maintained even if the State choses to directly elect their Senators. I submit that Section 4 of the proposed amendment does this.
QUOTE(crashfourit @ Apr 23 2005, 06:32 PM)
Furthermore, the State (the people thereof) should be able to choose how to remove the Senators if need be: i.e. by direct recall (ex. former California Governor Gray Davis) and/or by the State legislature.
QUOTE(Little-Acorn @ Apr 23 2005, 09:42 PM)
As I said, it's important that each state choose its own methods for both appointment and recall. If I don't like the methods they choose, tough - I can campaign against the legislators who did it; or move out of the state.
The states as states, have been without representation in the Federal government for far too long, and the results have been dreadful. Popularly elected Senators have been confirming judges who propose to give the people endless goodies, from "affirmative action" to welfare to banning political speech that might offend them. And these have all bee flatly unconstitutional. We need a more Republican form of government - the same one the Framers first designed. No one has yet found a better one, even today.
QUOTE(Erasmussimo @ May 28 2005, 04:08 PM)
My primary argument against this amendment is that it lessens the power of the people and places it in the hands of state legislators. Yes, the state legislators represent the people, but I see no reason to add that level of indirection. Let the people decide.
Erasmussimo, what I'm saying let the people decide if they want to let their state legislators to appoint their Senators or not. Section 3 of the proposed amendment assures that no mater wich method is used to select Senators their primary responsibility is to represent their State Government givening thim some say in the federal government.
Section 4, as I would modify it, would allow the states to select recall method(s) of their choice. With this, the Senators would have to worry about being recalled, like Fmr. Gov. Gray Davis of Calf., or being recalled by the State Legislature.
QUOTE(crashfourit @ May 28 2005, 02:43 PM)
Erasmussimo, what I'm saying let the people decide if they want to let their state legislators to appoint their Senators or not. Section 3 of the proposed amendment assures that no mater wich method is used to select Senators their primary responsibility is to represent their State Government givening thim some say in the federal government.
Section 4, as I would modify it, would allow the states to select recall method(s) of their choice. With this, the Senators would have to worry about being recalled, like Fmr. Gov. Gray Davis of Calf., or being recalled by the State Legislature.
Section 4, as I would modify it, would allow the states to select recall method(s) of their choice. With this, the Senators would have to worry about being recalled, like Fmr. Gov. Gray Davis of Calf., or being recalled by the State Legislature.
OK, I have nothing against an amendment that lets the people decide how they want their Senators chosen, nor do I have anything against Senators being recalled. I confess, however, that I don't see a great deal of import in this either way. On my own list of political priorities, it would fall pretty far down. But I'd vote for it.
QUOTE
[*]Should we replace the 17th Amendment with the proposed amendment? With modifications (please list)? Why?
No, I don't believe they should reinstated for the reasons given. One of the explanations for this was:
QUOTE
After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the federal government announced that it would preempt all state jurisdiction over airport security. The federal government preempted state powers without regard to balancing federal and state responsibilities so that these responsibilities, and related costs, could be distributed across federal, state, and local governments. To carry out this preemption, the federal government recently reported that it will employ more than 47,000 federal recruits in the fight against terrorism as newly trained security screeners. They are to begin working at 424 airports nationwide.
This complaint about frederal pre-emption is warrantless since the war on terror is being fought on the domestic front. It is not the job of the states to wage this battle in any way, it is a federal responsibility. There are no "balancing federal and state responsibilities" when it comes to warfare and our present war on terror. The various state legislatures and governors have no responsibility other than following the role in war as dictated to them by the president. In essence-as the Rock would say: "know your role!"
By making the airports and the states that have them a front, the state's automatically cede that jurisdiction to the federal government. If the state's were given "balancing responsibilities," it would be an egregious violation of Article I, section 10 of the U.S. constitution which specifically delineates that warfare is not a state responsbility. QUOTE
[*]How could the proposed amendment be modified to be a good compromise between people that like the 17th Amendment and those that don't?
[/list]Notes: [list]
[/list]Notes: [list]
Hmmm, perhaps have one of the senate seats be appointed, while the other popularly elected. I would be for that kind of compromise. With that being said, I fail to see why direct election by the people is not in a state's given interest, since the people themselves, constitute the state. As a matter of fact, I think most senators look out for their state's interest than the federal interests on most issues not pertaining to security and defense.
The best reason for repealing the 17th amendment is that people would pay more attention to their State legislatures, which are by far some of the most corrupt governments in the country. I’m sure if the 17th amendment was repealed it would drastically change the makeup of the Senate so this is a nice conversation but the Senators that love the job aren’t going to change the rules. A Senator’s first priority is job security
Should we replace the 17th Amendment with the proposed amendment?
No - as mentioned by at least one other poster, the proposed text isn't an amendment, it's a micromanagement.
With modifications (please list)? Why?
If it becomes the majority opinion of the people that our 50 state governments need more of a formal say in the operation of the national government, simply repeal the 17th Amendment and add that bit about the Governor selecting the Senator if the legislature fails to act within a set window of opportunity.
What are the the pros and cons of replacing the 17th Amendment with the proposed amendment above? With the modifications previously stated before your post (please state which ones)? With modifications you suggested?
Where to begin? First - Section 3 - the establishment of a separate committee - in each state - to liaise between the state government and its Senators is certainly an attractive patronage plum for each state, but all it will accomplish will be to impede an already maddeningly slow system. The requirement that each committee has to be notified of all treaties and proposed legislation is another bureaucratic requirement on the Congress, and we have to realize that the first time a piece of controversial legislation passes, some state's going to claim that it wasn't properly notified. And then the language giving each state the authority to set the relationship between the legislature and the Senator - sooner or later, one state would require consultation with the Senator, or even that the Senator has to vote as instructed . . . thus even further slowing down the process. Can you imagine: 12/8/1941 - in response to the President's request for a declaration of war with Japan, the Senate is waiting for the Senators from xxx and yyy to conclude consultations with their state governments before it can vote . . . (of course, in such a case, every member of every state legislature would feel that the future of the Republic would be doomed if s/he didn't stand up and give a two-hour, on-the-record speech). No matter what happens with this proposal, this component has to go.
Section 4 - Senators can be replaced (read: fired) by majority vote of both houses of the State legislature. Look for Senatorial replacements following any election in which control of a State's legislature changes from one party to another. One of the founders' intents in providing for staggered six-year terms for Senators was to avoid the instability of having the entire population of both Houses of Congress turned out every other year, and to reduce Senators' dependence upon political fortunes within their home states. This proposal would remove both safeguards.
How could the proposed amendment be modified to be a good compromise between people that like the 17th Amendment and those that don't?
Just for argument's sake, I suppose something could be said for an earlier poster's suggestion permitting ONE Senator of each state's delegation to be chosen by the legislature.
Go ahead, you've got something you want to say . . .
Why, thanks so much! Yes - I know the framers' original intent was to give state governments a formal say in the national government, and I know the 17th Amendment took that away. I also know that the one of the commonly-accepted reasons the framers gave states the authority to select senators (rather than specifying direct election) was that they held a deep distrust of the people's ability to select the best person for the job and not succumb to the enticements and promises of con men, snake-oil peddlars, fourflushers and the like. (Recent history shows that the framers were perceptive men, indeed!) I have no reason to disbelieve that the motivation for the 17th Amendment wasn't populism but procedural (i.e., the existence of deadlocks denying States their representation in the Senate). But the fact is that the 17th Amendment was enacted, and our system has evolved to what it is now, for better or worse. To turn back the clock will have impacts far beyond the way Senators are selected and the relationships among Senators and their State governments.
The framers, it's said, deliberately cobbled together an unwieldy form of government that wouldn't be able to act in a hurry - that wouldn't be able to take precipitate action. A form of government that required compromise among people. Re-introducing fifty state governments, many of which allegedly are riddled with corruption, into that process (notwithstanding the fact that this proposal requires no more than submission of proposals to each state) won't contribute anything at all to the streamlining of government, nor its reduction in size.
In fact, with technology being what it's become nowadays, why not just eliminate the Senate altogether, submit every action formerly considered by the Senate to each state, and have each legislature vote on it? Like a massive town hall meeting? That seems to be the logical extension of this proposal, but it would also guarantee gridlock in government beyond our wildest nightmares. Requiring Senators to act simply as mouthpieces for their State governments would have a similar, if less dramatic effect.
In addition, this new authority will only add to the inventory of potential areas of corruption at the statehouse level. An unintended effect will be to increase even more the importance of small states beyond their actual population: if you want to buy a Senator, better to get involved in the Delaware or Wyoming elections than those in California or New York.
Another excellent point made in the very first reply is that if the State and National governments each represent and govern the people, why shouldn't the people select all members of both governments?
To tell the truth, when this issue arose after 9/11, in response to the national government's essentially seizing control of security arrangements in all airports, superseding state authority, I think the main complaint (if unspoken) was that the states lost control of a lot of jobs. Personally, I was disgusted - sickened - by the way anti-terrorist initiatives became politicized so shortly after the attacks.
No - as mentioned by at least one other poster, the proposed text isn't an amendment, it's a micromanagement.
With modifications (please list)? Why?
If it becomes the majority opinion of the people that our 50 state governments need more of a formal say in the operation of the national government, simply repeal the 17th Amendment and add that bit about the Governor selecting the Senator if the legislature fails to act within a set window of opportunity.
What are the the pros and cons of replacing the 17th Amendment with the proposed amendment above? With the modifications previously stated before your post (please state which ones)? With modifications you suggested?
Where to begin? First - Section 3 - the establishment of a separate committee - in each state - to liaise between the state government and its Senators is certainly an attractive patronage plum for each state, but all it will accomplish will be to impede an already maddeningly slow system. The requirement that each committee has to be notified of all treaties and proposed legislation is another bureaucratic requirement on the Congress, and we have to realize that the first time a piece of controversial legislation passes, some state's going to claim that it wasn't properly notified. And then the language giving each state the authority to set the relationship between the legislature and the Senator - sooner or later, one state would require consultation with the Senator, or even that the Senator has to vote as instructed . . . thus even further slowing down the process. Can you imagine: 12/8/1941 - in response to the President's request for a declaration of war with Japan, the Senate is waiting for the Senators from xxx and yyy to conclude consultations with their state governments before it can vote . . . (of course, in such a case, every member of every state legislature would feel that the future of the Republic would be doomed if s/he didn't stand up and give a two-hour, on-the-record speech). No matter what happens with this proposal, this component has to go.
Section 4 - Senators can be replaced (read: fired) by majority vote of both houses of the State legislature. Look for Senatorial replacements following any election in which control of a State's legislature changes from one party to another. One of the founders' intents in providing for staggered six-year terms for Senators was to avoid the instability of having the entire population of both Houses of Congress turned out every other year, and to reduce Senators' dependence upon political fortunes within their home states. This proposal would remove both safeguards.
How could the proposed amendment be modified to be a good compromise between people that like the 17th Amendment and those that don't?
Just for argument's sake, I suppose something could be said for an earlier poster's suggestion permitting ONE Senator of each state's delegation to be chosen by the legislature.
Go ahead, you've got something you want to say . . .
Why, thanks so much! Yes - I know the framers' original intent was to give state governments a formal say in the national government, and I know the 17th Amendment took that away. I also know that the one of the commonly-accepted reasons the framers gave states the authority to select senators (rather than specifying direct election) was that they held a deep distrust of the people's ability to select the best person for the job and not succumb to the enticements and promises of con men, snake-oil peddlars, fourflushers and the like. (Recent history shows that the framers were perceptive men, indeed!) I have no reason to disbelieve that the motivation for the 17th Amendment wasn't populism but procedural (i.e., the existence of deadlocks denying States their representation in the Senate). But the fact is that the 17th Amendment was enacted, and our system has evolved to what it is now, for better or worse. To turn back the clock will have impacts far beyond the way Senators are selected and the relationships among Senators and their State governments.
The framers, it's said, deliberately cobbled together an unwieldy form of government that wouldn't be able to act in a hurry - that wouldn't be able to take precipitate action. A form of government that required compromise among people. Re-introducing fifty state governments, many of which allegedly are riddled with corruption, into that process (notwithstanding the fact that this proposal requires no more than submission of proposals to each state) won't contribute anything at all to the streamlining of government, nor its reduction in size.
In fact, with technology being what it's become nowadays, why not just eliminate the Senate altogether, submit every action formerly considered by the Senate to each state, and have each legislature vote on it? Like a massive town hall meeting? That seems to be the logical extension of this proposal, but it would also guarantee gridlock in government beyond our wildest nightmares. Requiring Senators to act simply as mouthpieces for their State governments would have a similar, if less dramatic effect.
In addition, this new authority will only add to the inventory of potential areas of corruption at the statehouse level. An unintended effect will be to increase even more the importance of small states beyond their actual population: if you want to buy a Senator, better to get involved in the Delaware or Wyoming elections than those in California or New York.
Another excellent point made in the very first reply is that if the State and National governments each represent and govern the people, why shouldn't the people select all members of both governments?
To tell the truth, when this issue arose after 9/11, in response to the national government's essentially seizing control of security arrangements in all airports, superseding state authority, I think the main complaint (if unspoken) was that the states lost control of a lot of jobs. Personally, I was disgusted - sickened - by the way anti-terrorist initiatives became politicized so shortly after the attacks.
QUOTE(Dale in GA @ Aug 6 2005, 12:13 PM)
... Re-introducing fifty state governments, many of which allegedly are riddled with corruption ...
...
In addition, this new authority will only add to the inventory of potential areas of corruption at the statehouse level. ...
A few people made mention of corruption at the state level, and I agree to some extent. But Congress is not exactly what one could call above-board either. Look at how each house has set up its house rules so that, in the Senate, a vote by a member counts for something; whereas, in the House, only the majority's vote really matters, with the minority party mostly being gagged with the exception of being allowed to "make suggestions." The minority can get up and make speeches, but the majority does not have to address their concerns or even give them equal time. Basically, whatever the House majority's agenda is will get passed.
What I am driving at is this: What will happen to the People's direct voting power once the 17th amendment is revoked? The people currently have some direct power via the Senate, since they vote for their senators, and their senators (hopefully) vote for them. This does not really happen in the House, unless the voter happens to vote for the majority party; the minority is underrepresented, if at all.
Perhaps some modification to the proposal -- whichever version of the proposal you prefer -- could be made to ensure that House rules are changed to give the minority party more power to control outcomes.
QUOTE(taxmurderer @ Aug 28 2005, 07:15 PM)
What I am driving at is this: What will happen to the People's direct voting power once the 17th amendment is revoked? The people currently have some direct power via the Senate, since they vote for their senators, and their senators (hopefully) vote for them. This does not really happen in the House, unless the voter happens to vote for the majority party; the minority is underrepresented, if at all.
Perhaps some modification to the proposal -- whichever version of the proposal you prefer -- could be made to ensure that House rules are changed to give the minority party more power to control outcomes.
Perhaps some modification to the proposal -- whichever version of the proposal you prefer -- could be made to ensure that House rules are changed to give the minority party more power to control outcomes.
I am not exactly sure this makes sense because the Senate normally votes along party lines as well. The people have direct control over the President (who can veto any bill). It takes a supermajority to override a veto. As it stand right now we directly elect Senators, Reprehensive, and the President (the electors vote rarely change their votes). When the Constitution was written the only directly elected position was Representative.
QUOTE(nemov @ Aug 28 2005, 08:09 PM)
QUOTE(taxmurderer @ Aug 28 2005, 07:15 PM)
What I am driving at is this: What will happen to the People's direct voting power once the 17th amendment is revoked? The people currently have some direct power via the Senate, since they vote for their senators, and their senators (hopefully) vote for them. This does not really happen in the House, unless the voter happens to vote for the majority party; the minority is underrepresented, if at all.
Perhaps some modification to the proposal -- whichever version of the proposal you prefer -- could be made to ensure that House rules are changed to give the minority party more power to control outcomes.
Perhaps some modification to the proposal -- whichever version of the proposal you prefer -- could be made to ensure that House rules are changed to give the minority party more power to control outcomes.
I am not exactly sure this makes sense because the Senate normally votes along party lines as well. The people have direct control over the President (who can veto any bill). It takes a supermajority to override a veto. As it stand right now we directly elect Senators, Reprehensive, and the President (the electors vote rarely change their votes). When the Constitution was written the only directly elected position was Representative.
You might want to review how house rules differ between the Senate and the House of Representatives. Basically, it is a philosophical difference that manifests in the rules each house uses to introduce bills, debates, committee procedures, etc. The majority in the House gets to decide all of these things, whereas in the Senate, both parties make the rules together. Rulemaking is normally the first thing the Congress does when it convenes, but I don't think much changes from session to session (which lasts 2 years), and the rules don't change during a session of congress. (BTW, that is what this "Nuclear Option" battle is all about.)
The framers wanted the House to represent the politics of the majority voters, and it does in fact do just that. The Senate offers more balance. Not only does it provide equal representation, but so do the Senate house rules. Most of the rules for each house were set up this way centuries ago, and there have only been a few major overhauls from what I have learned so far (the last one I think was in the 1920's). This aversion to tinkering is probably intended to maintain the tradition begun by the founding fathers.
So ... to clarify: The House provides a sounding board for its minority party members (who, in turn, represent the people who voted for those minority party members), but does not typically allow the minority to set any agendae; only the majority party in the House does that. (There is some backroom dealmaking that goes on, but you can guess that with the current divisiveness in Congress, the dems do not have much power in the House). If the Senate becomes by appointment rather than public voting, then only the House is left to perform direct representation. Due to the way the House of Representatives operates, it effectively eliminates (yes, eliminates) the power of representation for that part of the public consisting of minority party voters.
And that is my concern with the repeal of the 17th amendment.
QUOTE(taxmurderer @ Aug 29 2005, 12:19 AM)
The framers wanted the House to represent the politics of the majority voters, and it does in fact do just that.
QUOTE(taxmurderer @ Aug 29 2005, 12:19 AM)
If the Senate becomes by appointment rather than public voting, then only the House is left to perform direct representation. Due to the way the House of Representatives operates, it effectively eliminates (yes, eliminates) the power of representation for that part of the public consisting of minority party voters.
And that is my concern with the repeal of the 17th amendment.
And that is my concern with the repeal of the 17th amendment.
The framers were afraid of direct representation for just reason you are advocating. The current setup favors the majority. A more directly elected Government is easier for the Majority to dominate. Given the Congress' history since FDR, the Democrats had an absolute majority in both houses for a long time. The minority had no power during that time. If the Senate went back to appointments there would be less pressure to impose majority will, because the “mob rule” would be lessened.
QUOTE(nemov @ Aug 29 2005, 05:57 AM)
QUOTE(taxmurderer @ Aug 29 2005, 12:19 AM)
If the Senate becomes by appointment ... it effectively eliminates (yes, eliminates) the power of representation for that part of the public consisting of minority party voters.
And that is my concern with the repeal of the 17th amendment.
And that is my concern with the repeal of the 17th amendment.
The framers were afraid of direct representation for just reason you are advocating. The current setup favors the majority. A more directly elected Government is easier for the Majority to dominate. Given the Congress' history since FDR, the Democrats had an absolute majority in both houses for a long time. The minority had no power during that time. If the Senate went back to appointments there would be less pressure to impose majority will, because the “mob rule” would be lessened.
I am not sure what you mean when you say "for just the reason you are advocating." I am not advocating anything, actually; I am engaging in a discussion on this issue. I have not made up my mind yet.
What is your position (if you have made up your mind) so I can understand where you are going with this remark. (Thanks!)
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.