Georgia Legislators Want To Change 17th Amendment, End U.S. Senate Elections

[Crabtownboy]

What are these Georgia folk putting in their smokes?

A group of Republican state lawmakers in Georgia wants to end direct election of United States senators and return the power to state legislatures.

The resolution calls on Congress to begin the process of repealing the 17th Amendment, passed in 1913, which provided for the direct election of senators. State Rep. Kevin Cooke (R-Carrollton), the main sponsor of the resolution, told the Douglas County Sentinel that moving the power back to state legislatures would allow for the original intent of the Constitution.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...nt-senate-elections_n_2725595.html?ref=topbar

 

[Aaron]

'bout time.

 

[Salty]

'bout time.

Radio & TV Stations and Newspapers would hate that! Look at how much advertising would be lost.

Also that would end another round of robo calls at election time.

 

[Crabtownboy]

'bout time.

Are you ready to give up your vote?

 

[InTheLight]

From the article:

[state legislatures would choose Senators for their state, not citizens by direct election]

The 17th Amendment was adopted out of concern for state-level corruption influencing Senate elections, which Cooke said would not be the case now.



HA HA HA HA HA AHAHA HA HA HA HA!!

 

[Robert Snow]

Not only is this a bad idea, I don't think it has any chance of becoming law.

 

[Zaac]

What are these Georgia folk putting in their smokes?

Neal Boortz started this. Way to go Talk Master!!!:laugh:

 

[Aaron]

Are you ready to give up your vote?

Actually, my rights are better protected. The Senate is to represent the state governments. The House is to represent the people. (Which is why all revenue bills should originate in the House, not the Senate.)

What this would mean is that the people of a state are better represented in the senate, as the makeup of the state legislatures perfectly reflects the political mind of the the state as a whole.

 

[Zaac]

I actually think the Georgia Republicans have the right idea. This is why Boortz, a Libertarian, brought up the idea back in 2004.

The 17th Amendment, to be more specific. I believe the argument can be made that the 17th Amendment has done more to promote the growth of federal government than any other action in our country's history. The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, provided for the popular election of U.S. Senators. Our original Constitution created a system whereby the people of the United States were represented in Washington by the members of the House of Representatives, while the state governments were represented by Senators. Each state legislature would appoint two people to serve staggered terms in the Senate. The people had their voice in Washington, and so did the States. Tell me, do you think that the federal government would have successfully usurped so many powers from State governments? Would the U.S. Congress have placed so many unfunded mandates on the backs of the states? Our founding fathers (the politically correct term is now "framers") felt that in times of peace 90% of all government should emanate from state and local levels, and only 5% from the federal level. The growth of the federal sector at the expense of local power can be traced back to the ratification of the 17th Amendment. Repeal it. Return the power to the local governments.

Repeal the 17th Amendment

 

[InTheLight]

The unique powers of the Senate are almost all related to Federal issues.

Power to ratify treaties.
Power to try cases of impeachments of federal officers.
Power to approve Presidential appointments of federal officials.
Power to select the Vice President in case there is no Electoral College majority.

There is no representation of states' interest involved in these unique powers, so why should the states decide the Senator?

 

[Zaac]

The unique powers of the Senate are almost all related to Federal issues.

Power to ratify treaties.
Power to try cases of impeachments of federal officers.
Power to approve Presidential appointments of federal officials.
Power to select the Vice President in case there is no Electoral College majority.

There is no representation of states' interest involved in these unique powers, so why should the states decide the Senator?

At issue is not the unique powers, but the powers that conservatives feel should be decided by states.

The House represents the people's interest. The Senate was supposed to represent the State's interest. They were supposed to be going to DC to do what was best for the STATE. That has changed. The Founders had the state legislatures appointing the Senate reps for good reason.

Now the Senate is full of folks who go against what their states want in favor of what the federal government wants.

 

[Robert Snow]

Now the Senate is full of folks who go against what their states want in favor of what the federal government wants.

When this happens vote them out of office and replace them with someone who will vote the state's interest.

 

[InTheLight]

When this happens vote them out of office and replace them with someone who will vote the state's interest.

Oh no! No, no, no, no. Better to change the constitution. :BangHead:

Sheesh.

 

[Oldtimer]

'bout time.

AMEN, Brother.

Bout time, a piece of the Constitution & Bill of Rights is returned to the "balance of powers" and states rights as originally designed.

The popular vote is represented in the House of Representatives.

States rights was represented by the two Senators selected by state government.

Popular vote kicked out those who did not represent the majority of the view of the people of their individual districts.

State government used to be able to kick out those who did not defend states rights in accordance with the wishes of the state.

Now the push is to kill the electorial college so that 2 of the three branches are all elected by direct popular vote.

"Democracy" at work in a REPUBLIC. :BangHead:

 

[Aaron]

When this happens vote them out of office and replace them with someone who will vote the state's interest.

Only the legislature can do that. The general populations don't know the state's interest as a whole. They choose representatives for their districts.

And especially in rural states, the effect now is that one or two metropolitan areas are simply choosing two extra representatives for themselves and call them senators, and most of them, like you, aren't interested in the state's interest. They're interested in themselves.

 

[Zaac]

Oh no! No, no, no, no. Better to change the constitution. :BangHead:

Sheesh.

They changed it to get the 17th Amendment. Change it back. :laugh:

 

[carpro]

Not only is this a bad idea, I don't think it has any chance of becoming law.

'bout Zero.

 

[Bob Alkire]

I actually think the Georgia Republicans have the right idea. This is why Boortz, a Libertarian, brought up the idea back in 2004.

The 17th Amendment, to be more specific. I believe the argument can be made that the 17th Amendment has done more to promote the growth of federal government than any other action in our country's history. The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, provided for the popular election of U.S. Senators. Our original Constitution created a system whereby the people of the United States were represented in Washington by the members of the House of Representatives, while the state governments were represented by Senators. Each state legislature would appoint two people to serve staggered terms in the Senate. The people had their voice in Washington, and so did the States. Tell me, do you think that the federal government would have successfully usurped so many powers from State governments? Would the U.S. Congress have placed so many unfunded mandates on the backs of the states? Our founding fathers (the politically correct term is now "framers") felt that in times of peace 90% of all government should emanate from state and local levels, and only 5% from the federal level. The growth of the federal sector at the expense of local power can be traced back to the ratification of the 17th Amendment. Repeal it. Return the power to the local governments.



Repeal the 17th Amendment

I agree with the Ga. Republicans.

Side note, I recall when Neal was the liberal host on ring radio years ago. I believe Neal goes where the money is for him, I could be wrong.

 

[Salty]

As I stated before, I would like to do away with the popular election of US Senators.

However, I would like to put a twist on this discussion.

One of the Senators should be the LT Governer of his State or Commonwealth -

Thoughts?

 

[carpro]

As I stated before, I would like to do away with the popular election of US Senators.

However, I would like to put a twist on this discussion.

One of the Senators should be the LT Governer of his State or Commonwealth -

Thoughts?

The LT. Gov. is the most powerful office in the state of Texas. He needs to stay at home. And making him a Senator would be vesting one man with far too much power.