17th ammendment

I am not sure where to put this thread but I'll drop it here for now.

If my source serves me correctly there should be something that stands out about the 17th ammendment that just dosn't fit with everything else. However I can not figure out what that is. It might be something subtle . Please take a look and let me know if you see anything!

“ The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
”
Anything strange there to anyone?

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Does this mean it's not part of the constitution???

Other than that, sounds like a bunch of "Law-Speak" double talk, that they can read whatever they want out of it...

You mean "requisite" where "required" would work?

Or "writs of election"?

O-315

It's not written in English, you know. It's written in "legalese".

[edit on 4-4-2009 by organism315]

reply to post by a703o


The 17th Amendment allowed Senators to be elected directly by the people instead of the state legislators at the time. The old way was quite corrupt, as robber barons bragged on how many Senators they owned.

The other part states that a governor of a state shall replace a Senator until the next election cycle, or the states can legislate it for the people to vote for a replacement in a special election.

You can tell I liked history back in school.

OK I actually just dug this up from ATS and it seems there is something to this possibly, but WHAT?!

"Many people look at the American government around 1850 and wonder how the government that exists now, in 2004, is even the same government. While some of that change has been positive, there have also been a few negative changes. An often overlooked amendment, the 17th, is responsible for much of the negative change that has taken place. However subtle this Amendment may seem, it is quite possibly one of the biggest mistakes in America's history. Don't be scared away by the size of this issue, it may just be the most important one out there"

My "sources" indicate this could be a HUGEclue!

This shouldn't be taken lightly.

The only thing that I can think of is that it took the direct participation by the state governments (via choosing Senators) out of the picture. Though this is a bit of a stretch as it really only dependent on how you view the state government: representitive of the people or a government representing itself on behalf of the people.

This goes at odds with the system we have for electing the President, which is still a system of states choosing electors to vote for president, who by tradition follow the people's vote of their state.

Ironically though if you don't like the Federal Reserve, it was passed in 1912-1913. The Federal Reserve was established in 1913 as well. I doubt it has much impact on what the op wanted to get across, but who knows?