What do you think about the Seventeenth Amendment ?

[Progressivism]

I am a Liberal/Progressive kind of person, but I do not know the context behind this amendment so, in part, I do not think I am prepared enough to have a opinion on this.Give me your opinion on what I should believe regarding this.

[leftstreet]

1. Thou shalt have no other Senators before me

I don't know.

Although the part where Governors get to appoint Senators to open seats sucks.

[dflprincess]

2. I don't understand why you'd have a question about it.

You'd rather that legislatures still appointed senators rather than the public electing them?

[Progressivism]

6. Yes.

I know that the Progressives of the past supported the idea behind the amendment, but I do not know whether Progressives support it now.I think I am leaning towards a left-libertarian slant regarding this issue.

I think a Senator, as a representative of an entire state, should be chosen by a "wiser"(I think) electorate.(but there are other reasons that I can't quite articulate)

[dflprincess]

13. If that were the case, the senator would be chosen by

whatever party controls the state legislature. In the case of an incumbant, it wouldn't matter what kind of job they had been doing if they belonged to the party not in power in their state. We have enough problems getting decent senators elected now, but the position would really be just a political patronage job if politicians were in charge of choosing them again.

There are some good people in the Minnesota legislature but I don't know that I'd call them any wiser than the rest of the electorate. Even with the DFL in control, we would never had had Wellstone in the Senate if it had been up to the legislature. Politicians tend to be far more conservative than the electorate.

[NYC Liberal]

10. That's what the Ron Paul types want.

They say that the Senate was originally meant to be the States' direct input in the federal government (which is correct) and the 17th amendment took away the states' say in the federal government. The argument simply boils down to "That's the way it was originally, so that way is better" ... which is bullshit.

The 17th amendment was passed because there was rampant corruption in state legislatures and the Senate elections. Not to mention that when you have a legislature doing something, you get all the parliamentary bullshit that keeps things tied up, much like you see today in Congress with the filibuster and everything else that keeps legislation from getting passed, only then it kept senators from being elected and denied the state its representation in the Senate.

[1]

3. i'm a big fan of all odd numbered amendments. they are the best...

[Sherman A1]

12. Agreed & Well Said

[alittlelark]

4. Eradicate ALL 'appointed' seats

WE are 'THE PEOPLE'. WE will determine outcomes - barring evil corporatist minions masquerading as 'real people'.



Publicly funded elections will solve your issue,

[1]

5. "WE are 'THE PEOPLE'. WE will determine outcomes"

really? you think that?

[merh]

7. I like it a whole lot more than the 18th.

Thank goodness the 21st repealed the 18th. :toast:

[AllentownJake]

8. Just read the historical context

Evidently the states started having their own direct elections anyway and almost called a constitutional convention to enact the amendment.

[Yupster]

9. It is not considered very often, but it caused a major change

to the American government.

The US Constitutional Government was formed by the states, not by the people. By forming the Constitutional government the states were giving up a lot of power and they were wary of doing that.

So a lot of safeguards were put in to protect the power of the states. Without those safeguards, the Constitution would not have been ratified. It barely was anyway.

Among the safeguards for the states.

1. The Tenth Amendment made sure it was clear as day that if a power was not clearly given to this new congress, then it would be retained by the states.

2. The President would be elected by electors, not the populous, and those electors would be chosen by the state legislatures.

3. Senators would be chosen by the state legislatures, so the states would have a veto power over anything the new national congress tried to do.

Things sure have changed.

1. The Tenth Amendment is just plain ignored today.

2. South Carolina was the last state to choose their electors by action of the state legislature. In 1868, South Carolina held its first popular vote for President officially/supposedly voting for Ulysses Grant.

3. The 17th Amendment took the senate choosing away from the states and gave it to the voters.

The 17th Amendment is not considered a very important one, but it really finished a very important change in our government. It was the final decisive victory of the federal government over the states. Since that time the powers of the federal government have grown each year until it dominates US government.

For better or worse, the 17th Amendment was very important.

My own opinion is that we should abolish the senate as a costly vestige of a time that we felt the states needed a voice in Washington.

[provis99]

11. I'd rather just abolish the Senate.

It is disproportionate, and unrepresentative. It is ridiculous that Wyoming gets the same representation as California. People should be represented, not the plots of land called states.

[Kaleva]

14. It's one that a person can say over and over again fast without getting tounge tied.

I can amuse myself doing things that others may find idiotic.