Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Jan 28, 2010.
What are your thoughts about the 17th amendment?
From Renew America
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?
Yes. The House represents the people, the Senate represents the States. Returning to that ideal will roll communism back quite a few years.
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.
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.
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?
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.
> 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 If so, it sure failed and should be repealed.
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.