Repealing the 17th Amendment.

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/10/24/repeal-the-17th-amendment/

That's a pretty good article. Congress has become controlled by special interests largely due to the 17th Amendment.

Also, if the Senator violates the wishes of the state, then the state legislature removes them from office. That helps enforce the 10th Amendment.

So why the hell shouldn't we repeal the 17th Amendment? There is actually a growing movement to do so, surprisingly.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,035
1
81
To some extent, I do believe that the a repeal of the 17th Amendment would restore some of the states' control over the federal government. As it is now, both the House and the Senate are simply pawns for the national majority party platform and the president.

Having the Senate ultimately controlled by the states would change that, which I believe would certainly be for the better.

Do I think it'll ever happen? No.

When Obama steals his second term, he will disband the House and the Senate and declare himself Emporer of America, so it'll be a moot issue in 2 years anyway.
 

TheBDB

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2002
3,176
0
0
So having Senators chosen by other politicians would be less corrupt than having them chosen by the people?
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,035
1
81
There's slightly more accountability at the state and local levels of government (at least in California) than there are at the federal level.

Sure, there would be some corruption in the early stages, but after the first few are given the boot, things will tone down.

It may not end up being perfect, but there's no possible way it could be worse than what we have.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/10/24/repeal-the-17th-amendment/

That's a pretty good article. Congress has become controlled by special interests largely due to the 17th Amendment.

Also, if the Senator violates the wishes of the state, then the state legislature removes them from office. That helps enforce the 10th Amendment.

So why the hell shouldn't we repeal the 17th Amendment? There is actually a growing movement to do so, surprisingly.

Hey. Let's not elect anyone. Let's have a politician appoint them all. Then no special interests will control elections, because we won't have any elections.

Come to think of it, we can eliminate cancer this way, too: Let's kill every living thing on earth. Voila! No cancer.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
So having Senators chosen by other politicians would be less corrupt than having them chosen by the people?

Well, seems quite obvious that Senators would be much less prone to be influenced by big lobbyists. If they sucumbed to lobbyists, they'd be kicked out by the state legislators etc.

They wouldn't need campaign contributions from them either.

Fern
 
Last edited:

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,829
11,246
136
So having Senators chosen by other politicians would be less corrupt than having them chosen by the people?

You've had too much of the kool-aid if you believe that the PEOPLE really chose their elected officials. Remember, you only "get to vote" on the candidates that you're given by the special interest groups and corporations...


I'd MUCH rather see the 14th Amendment be amended to eliminate the "anchor baby" clause.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Tenthers- among the lamest repub denialists.

If anything, there's less accountability at the State level because of Gerrymandering.

And the proposed amendment is an absurdity- only 51 percent to recall a sitting senator. In closely divided legislatures, flipping a few seats means the old senator is out and a new one comes in, regardless of the job he's doing or what the people of the State have to say about it. And in legislatures where one party controls the Senate and the other controls the HOR, deadlock means no senator at all... denying the people their voice at the federal level.

And if you think big money has power at the federal level, it has even more at the state level where getting rightwingers to sell out to business interests is trivial...

The Senate is bad enough as government by committee- this would make it govt by a committee appointed by 50 committees...
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,096
5,639
126
In a Month you'll have started a Thread for repealing every Amendment. Perhaps you should just cut to the chase now and start the: Repeal the Constitution!; thread?
 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
So having Senators chosen by other politicians would be less corrupt than having them chosen by the people?

Why not just do away with them all together and have Direct Democracy, no danger in having people directly controlling everything, right?

FWIW, I do not like the 17th amendment, but there are more important problems to deal with right now.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,096
5,639
126
Why not just do away with them all together and have Direct Democracy, no danger in having people directly controlling everything, right?

FWIW, I do not like the 17th amendment, but there are more important problems to deal with right now.

Why waste time on that? National Lottery is cheaper, faster, and doesn't require Campaigning even. Just have a computer spit out some Names and that's it.
 

SammyJr

Golden Member
Feb 27, 2008
1,708
0
0
When Obama steals his second term, he will disband the House and the Senate and declare himself Emporer of America, so it'll be a moot issue in 2 years anyway.

I can tell right away that you'd pass the Tea Party purity test. Go run for office!
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Well, seems quite obvious that Senators would be much less prone to be influenced by big lobbyists. If they sucumbed to lobbyists, they'd be kicked out by the state legislators etc.

They wouldn't need campaign contributions from them either.

Fern

And lobbyists would lobby state legislatures who, as a general rule, have less strict anti-lobbying rules, to appoint corporate and/or union shills to the Senate. Yeah, that would really solve the lobbying problem.

This idea is counter-productive to its purpose, and therefore full of FAIL.

- wolf
 
Last edited:

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
This is absolutely true. Most money to elect them, or more accurately who you are presented to vote for, comes from outside the state - party, multinational corps, private parties outside state. With that money of course comes outside strings attached which does not represent your interests. Combined with power of incumbacy and ignorant voters leaves in place federalist politicians.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,096
5,639
126
And lobbyists would lobby state legislatures who, as a general rule, have less strict anti-lobbying rules, to appoint corporate and/or union shills to the Senate. Yeah, that would really solve the lobbying problem.

- wolf

I was joking, but the more I think of it, the more I like the Lottery idea. The first criticism is likely, "What about stupid People?". To that I would respond, "Have you seen the stupidity of Politicians these days?"
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
And lobbyists would lobby state legislatures who, as a general rule, have less strict anti-lobbying rules, to appoint corporate and/or union shills to the Senate. Yeah, that would really solve the lobbying problem.

This idea is counter-productive to its purpose, and therefore full of FAIL.

- wolf

It sorta depends, the lobbyists would have to lobby to a lot more politicians, but those politicians would each be cheaper. It they were not much cheaper, it could cost the special interests a lot more than it does now, and make it unprofitable. If the politicians are a lot cheaper, it might end up being cheaper for them.

In England, when the King controlled monopolies, many merchants were granted monopolies. When the power over monopolies was taken by the parliament the number of granted monopolies, and the length of time they were in effect fell. It was harder for a merchant to convince (bribe) many officials compared to just one. I really don't know how a change to the 17th would affect this, but it is possible for it to make it harder for lobbyists to gain control.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
People don't know history. The 17th amendment was passed precisely because the Senate was seen as a corrupt branch beholden to the rich and powerful, it was called 'the Millionares' club', there was plenty of evidence of that corruption, and the populist/progressive backlash to give the public more power included the 17th.

It was a victory for the public against private corruption of the rich. The problems with big money in campaigns are separate issues. Keep the public electing them.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
People don't know history. The 17th amendment was passed precisely because the Senate was seen as a corrupt branch beholden to the rich and powerful, it was called 'the Millionares' club', there was plenty of evidence of that corruption, and the populist/progressive backlash to give the public more power included the 17th.

It was a victory for the public against private corruption of the rich. The problems with big money in campaigns are separate issues. Keep the public electing them.

I stand corrected. Thanks. And Yes it ultimately comes down to informed voters. Stop looking at two parties would be a good start. I have not voted for them since Clinton 92.;)
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,865
10
0
People don't know history. The 17th amendment was passed precisely because the Senate was seen as a corrupt branch beholden to the rich and powerful, it was called 'the Millionares' club', there was plenty of evidence of that corruption, and the populist/progressive backlash to give the public more power included the 17th.

It was a victory for the public against private corruption of the rich. The problems with big money in campaigns are separate issues. Keep the public electing them.

Yeah, and everyone knows the 17th fixed any problems with Congress being controlled by the rich and the power... oh, wait...
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
And lobbyists would lobby state legislatures who, as a general rule, have less strict anti-lobbying rules, to appoint corporate and/or union shills to the Senate. Yeah, that would really solve the lobbying problem.

This idea is counter-productive to its purpose, and therefore full of FAIL.

- wolf

What is easier. Lobbying 100 senators or 50 state legislatures?
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,967
19
81
I was joking, but the more I think of it, the more I like the Lottery idea. The first criticism is likely, "What about stupid People?". To that I would respond, "Have you seen the stupidity of Politicians these days?"

I don't buy into the stupid people theory. Even if so, if the masses vote for it who am I to say otherwise.

Our whole system of Dem Vs Rep, electoral college, etc is outdated. Bring the polls online like banking. People can vote for single issues without all this BS thrown in.

Thing is it's those in control that don't want that. Most work the hardest to preserve themselves and their families and what's good for everyone else comes last.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,502
1
81
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/10/24/repeal-the-17th-amendment/

That's a pretty good article. Congress has become controlled by special interests largely due to the 17th Amendment.

Also, if the Senator violates the wishes of the state, then the state legislature removes them from office. That helps enforce the 10th Amendment.

So why the hell shouldn't we repeal the 17th Amendment? There is actually a growing movement to do so, surprisingly.

Who benefits from the removing the direct election of Senators? The voter is not the "state"?
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
It would be easier to make campaign contributions illegal from anyone but private citizens.
That alone would stop a lot of the crap that is going on.