dtotire
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-17-10 03:04 PM
Original message |
| Repeal the 17th Amendment |
|
I think the passage of the 17th amendment was a mistake. Prior to this, Senators appointed by State legislatures tended to be statesmen. Electing Senators by popular votes made the elections more costly, and many of those elected are political hacks, dependent on political contributions from special interests, and are highly partisan. If the 17th was repealed, we could make some provision for popular input, and have stronger requirements, such as having held public office for a certain period. This could be an appointed office, such as a Cabinet position at the State or Federal level.
|
MineralMan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-17-10 03:07 PM
Response to Original message |
| 1. The teabaggers support that idea strongly. |
|
Edited on Wed Feb-17-10 03:10 PM by MineralMan
It's one of their central issues. Still like it?
Alan Keyes thinks it's a marvy idea. Still sound good?
George Will is a big fan, too. Losing interest, now?
|
virgogal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-17-10 03:08 PM
Response to Original message |
| 2. And those appointed by state legislatures weren't hacks? You've got to be kidding. |
SCantiGOP
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-17-10 03:15 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I shudder to think who South Carolina would appoint. We have already elected one of the absolute worst Senators (DeMint) but Lindsey Graham is pretty good for a southern Republican.
|
WeDidIt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-17-10 03:15 PM
Response to Original message |
| 4. That's a rightwing movement |
dsc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-17-10 03:17 PM
Response to Original message |
| 5. actually history shows the direct opposite |
|
The biggest reason that the 17th Amendment was passed was due to corporations literally paying state legislatures to appoint specific Senators.
|
T Wolf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-17-10 03:20 PM
Response to Original message |
| 6. I'd rather see the Senate abolished. Why should small-population states have the |
|
same representation as those with tens of millions of citizens? Neither change will happen, unfortunately.
|
Posteritatis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-17-10 03:24 PM
Response to Original message |
| 7. People sure do like proposing constitutional changes for short-term political advantage, don't they? |
|
I sorta wish a few of the "we need to rewrite large swathes of the system" guys would be honest enough to say "...and add in a provision saying Republicans can't benefit from any of this!" at least...
|
bamacrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-17-10 03:32 PM
Response to Original message |
| 8. Just abolish the filibuster. |
|
Set term limits for Senators. Eliminate career Senators. Expand a Senate term to 10 years and allow only one. Too much power is given to these people. This way they would have their job long enough to push an agenda yet have no possibility for re-election so they would do what they want not what will get them re-elected.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Feb 10th 2026, 04:55 PM
Response to Original message |