A Constitutional Amendment That Needs Amending

What seemed to be good ideas in the past, sometimes turn out to have been horrible ideas after all.

The one I am referring to here, specifically, is the 17th amendment to our constitution. Prior to this amendment's ratification, in 1913, Senators were elected, not by popular vote of the citizens of each individual state, but appointed by each state's legislators. The method of selecting Senators in this fashion was deliberate and intentional for a specific reason. To ensure each state, (understand this), each state to have representation in and a semblance of influence over the executive administration of the federal government. The people had their representation in that each state's congressional representation, the House of Representatives, was elected by the people.

But prior to the 17th's ratification, there was a populist uprising contesting the method of senatorial selection.

Cornell Law com

The ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment was the outcome of increasing popular dissatisfaction with the operation of the originally established method of electing Senators. As the franchise became exercisable by greater numbers of people, the belief became widespread that Senators ought to be popularly elected in the same manner as Representatives. Acceptance of this idea was fostered by the mounting accumulation of evidence of the practical disadvantages and malpractices attendant upon legislative selection, such as deadlocks within legislatures resulting in vacancies remaining unfilled for substantial intervals, the influencing of legislative selection by corrupt political organizations and special interest groups through purchase of legislative seats, and the neglect of other duties by legislators as a consequence of protracted electoral contests.

Prior to ratification, however, many states had perfected arrangements calculated to afford the voters more effective control over the selection of Senators. State laws were amended so as to enable voters participating in primary elections to designate their preference for one of several party candidates for a senatorial seat, and nominations unofficially effected thereby were transmitted to the legislature. Although their action rested upon no stronger foundation than common understanding, the legislatures generally elected the winning candidate of the majority, and, indeed, in two states, candidates for legislative seats were required to promise to support, without regard to party ties, the senatorial candidate polling the most votes. As a result of such developments, at least 29 states by 1912, one year before ratification, were nominating Senators on a popular basis, and, as a consequence, the constitutional discretion of the legislatures had been reduced to little more than that retained by presidential electors.

So now, we have 2 branches of our congress elected by the people and absolutely no representation for the individual states and their abilities to have any semblance of influence or control over the executive administration of our federal government. Elected by a population either so ill-informed, ignorant of, or just too stupid to competently elect, not only representation to the House of Representatives, but now, also to the Senate. And guess what? The corruption of, and in our process of election continues unabated. In that regard, ratification, not only had no effect of eliminating graft and corruption, but probably exacerbated the graft and corruption of our elected officials in Washington DC.

Along with the ratification of the 16th amendment, the state's influence was completely and irrevocably neutered and now, because of this amendment, there is very little, if nothing states can do to stem the tide of destruction we now witness in our federal government.

The 17th needs to be repealed, with a structure of federal rules and regulation established to eliminate the potential of graft and corruption by our state legislatures to honestly select our Senatorial representation. Give back to the states the leverage they need to adequately represent, both their states and their states citizen's best interests in Washington DC.

a reply to: LittleJake

S&F for a topic near and dear to my heart... will post a response soon, on a call right now...

a reply to: LittleJake

please explain to me how senators being appointed by their states bears any semblance to what the people of that state want over what their states power mongers want.

senators are two voices of people of their state not the state voice, letting anyone vote for laws that are beholden to one person or a group of small people in power other than the people they represent is just asking for even more f----d up laws to be passed.

If they can void the 17th they need to add a term limit of one term. That way no matter how monstrous they are they're gone after 6 years. And force the state to choose new senators every time.

a reply to: LittleJake

I'd say the 19th Amendment as well.

Once women were allowed to vote, everything went down hill from there.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

Unfunded mandates.

Our Feds now are very fond of mandating what states shall do without respect to whether or not it is actually realistic to every state as a politic entity with a budget.

Part of stems from the Senate not thinking of states as governing bodies because they don't represent the interests of those bodies, instead they represent the bulk electorate, but the House already does this.

Of course, it might be better to expand the House chamber again to where each Rep has its several hundred thousand people. Then they meet via Zoom.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

They are now, at this point, but not as the framers of our original constitution envisioned. They initially created our federal government in a fashion that gave ALL parties, both citizens and each individual state, representation in the operations of our federal government. The original framers were adamant that the individual states remained autonomous to a degree with the powers to resist federal authority if, when or where they deemed that federal authority was overstepping their constitutional authority. As they most certainly are now. They intentionally set up a system of state influence over this federal monolith to restrict their influence over states.

At this point in time, admittedly, I have not much, little faith in our individual state's abilities to function in the best interests of We, the people. Hell, we can't even elect state representatives and governors to honorably represent us anymore. As I said, citizens have become far too complacent and trusting, politically brainwashed and uninformed, illiterate, or even just too damned gullible and stupid to elect competent, honest representatives, even at state and local levels anymore. We can't even seem to elect honest people to fill these positions at this point. But at least we have a better chance of electing honorable representatives at the state level than we do our representatives in DC. Furthermore, they recognized the truth, fact that the individual states should have some control of a federal government that had the potential to do exactly what we are now witnessing today. An out of control federal monolithic authority exhibiting autocratic control over every state and citizen in this nation.

Hell's bells, to be perfectly honest in my attitude at this point, we shouldn't even be allowed to elect our president by popular vote anymore, for these same reasons. Political ignorance, stupidity, gullibility. I don't think a majority of citizens have the capacity to elect responsibly anymore.

Not all, but some cities and municipalities elect city councils and these city councils hire city managers to run their municipalities. When that city manager doesn't live up to expectations, they fire him/her and hire someone they think can perform satisfactorily. I think even that system would be better than what we suffer through at this point.

Let's be honest here. Just how many citizens of these individual states actually know what they want, or expect out of this federal government? Personally, I want honesty, transparency and assurances that this government is actually working for the benefit and betterment of us all. Just one example that this is not happening is our involvement in Ukraine. What in the holy hell are we doing over there? They, all the common citizens, are too busy just trying to exist to know what they want or expect from this government. Most, at this point, are content to just, "go with the flow".

originally posted by: ntech
If they can void the 17th they need to add a term limit of one term. That way no matter how monstrous they are they're gone after 6 years. And force the state to choose new senators every time.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: LittleJake

I'd say the 19th Amendment as well.

Once women were allowed to vote, everything went down hill from there.

Hells yea! And since they are nothing more than birthing persons now, they should step aside and let the dudes in dresses take their place. The birthing people should be in the damn kitchen making sammiches.

a reply to: watchitburn

That would most certainly kick off a 2nd American Revolution at this point, wouldn't it?

a reply to: LittleJake

Of women?

Okay....

a reply to: BernnieJGato

senators are two voices of people of their state not the state voice

Exactly. It's "We the People", not "We the States".

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Hell yes, right! This system is sure working out perfectly for us now, isn't it. It's all just peachy keen, isn't it?

a reply to: LittleJake

You mean, because Trump lost got the election stolen from him by senile but evil Dark Brandon?

You don't like the representatives that the people elect, so you think it best to take away their ability to vote for them?

Like, as if, the system that was in place before 1913 would keep us corruption free and no scary deep state would have been able to form. /sarc

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I get such a kick out of reading anti-Americans getting all "Constitutionally".



It's amusing!

a reply to: DBCowboy

Communists have no moral compass, they will use any orthodoxy or tradition (even if it is totally opposed to their ideology) to advance their goals.

They must be rooted out like cancer and destroyed.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: DBCowboy

Communists have no moral compass, they will use any orthodoxy or tradition (even if it is totally opposed to their ideology) to advance their goals.

They must be rooted out like cancer and destroyed.

They wrap themselves in the Constitution when it suits their purposes, the rest of the time they use it as a tampon.

a reply to: watchitburn

Sour ability to accept others life choices seems to upset your way of life......I'm sure that must be a life long Issue.
Wanna comment on the future aspect of overseen lessons?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Precisely.

a reply to: LittleJake

I don't see a Constitutional Convention happening any time soon.

We're too divided as a nation and the issues that would provide a positive change, the evil left won't allow.