Should the 17th amendment be repealed?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Jan 28, 2010.

?

Should the 17th amendment be repealed?

  1. Yes, the original Constitutional called for the States to select the Senators

    6 vote(s)
    54.5%
  2. No, Americans deserve to have popularly elected Senators

    3 vote(s)
    27.3%
  3. One appointed by State and one popularly elected

    1 vote(s)
    9.1%
  4. No Sure

    1 vote(s)
    9.1%
  5. Other answer

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,132
    Likes Received:
    221
    #1 Salty, Jan 28, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 28, 2010
  2. Bob Alkire

    Bob Alkire
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like the way it started out. It gave more importance to state elections, and I believe that would give us better people to serve. Who needs the 17th. amendment?
     
  3. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,693
    Likes Received:
    242
    Yes. The House represents the people, the Senate represents the States. Returning to that ideal will roll communism back quite a few years.
     
  4. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not likely to happen, given that fact that it was quickly ratified by 38 of the then-48 states.
    And Senators are elected by the voters of that state, so the Senators still represent the state from which they are elected.
    That makes no sense. To claim that communism can be stemmed by taking away the vote of the people and putting it in the hands of politicians doesn't have the ring of accuracy.

    I'm actually surprised to see that several of the folks who advocate repealing of the 17th Amendment are also generally anti-federalist. This is a bit of an inconsistency, since one of the intents of Amendment XVII was to combat federalism.

    BTW, the only time an attempt to repeal the Amendment was made was in 2003, by the Montana Judiciary Committee. They passed a resolution (6-3) calling for repeal, but the Montana Senate voted against it 39-10.
     
    #4 Johnv, Jan 28, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 28, 2010
  5. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,693
    Likes Received:
    242
    You're surprised because you don't understand a republican form of government, or how our form was constructed to preserve liberty.

    In short, you're a liberal.
     
  6. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was hoping for intelligent conversation, but then I realized who I was talking to. Since I'm fully cognisant of our republican form of government, it stands to reason that you're either mistaken, or you're a liar.
    That's the best defense you can come up with? :rolleyes:
     
  7. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since the intent was orignally for the H of R to represent the peoples' interest (not that it does anymore)...and the Senate was supposed to represent the States' interests...I like the idea of returning to that.

    Having said that...it's not like there's too much to work with.
     
  8. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    > since one of the intents of Amendment XVII was to combat federalism.

    Please explain why that was the intent. If so, it sure failed and should be repealed.
     
  9. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The idea was to put the choice of senators into the hands of the people in the state, rather than have it be in the hands of career politicians in power. Whether it was solely responsible for the opposite effect is debatable. I don't particulay oppose its repeal (despite pompous and arrogant comments from blowhards like Aaron), but consideration of its repeal begs the question of whether, at this point, it will make any dent in federalism at all. For example, the people of Massachusents voted a replacement for Ted Kennedy's old seat that would likely have been different had the choice been left to the legislators of the state.
     

Share This Page

Loading...