Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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 such 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.
There is a reason that the very beginning of the US Constitution, had section 3.
The power to the people with states having more power than the union.
Individuals had representation... States had representation... and the central government having representation, with the central government having the least amount of powers.
The 17th amendment undermined this very check and balance. Eliminating the States from the equation and the locally elected State representatives. States lost all their power with the 17th Amendment.
Indeed and absolutely correct... I have long argued for the repeal of the 17th ammendment. Power needs to shift back to the states and be taken away from the executive and legislative branches of our government.
There is a reason that the very beginning of the US Constitution, had section 3.
The reason: A greater trust in government than in the people.
The purpose: Protect oligarchy
At least the founders were smart enough to admit mistakes and make fixes along the way. And I'm sure they were smart enough to recognize that they didn't have the perfect implementation of an idea and they left room for improvements via amendments.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 11-14-2011 at 08:24 AM..
What a stupid argument. The members of the Senate are elected by the voters of the states. Consequently, the states have no less power over who gets into the Senate by popular vote than they did when they were elected by state legislatures. It's still a state-level decision.
Maybe you mean that the governments of a state know more than the people of a state.
Why not question the whole construct? Why should a voter in Wyoming have 60 times the representation of one in California? We redistrict the house voting population to a fraction of a percent. Why is the Senate different?
At one time the representing of the state may have been rational. That day is long gone.
Why not question the whole construct? Why should a voter in Wyoming have 60 times the representation of one in California? We redistrict the house voting population to a fraction of a percent. Why is the Senate different?
At one time the representing of the state may have been rational. That day is long gone.
Because they wanted each state to have equal power in what goes on in this country. You are saying the sates should have unequal representation according to population.
In their wisdom the founders did not want our supreme court judges to run for office, nor our US senators. I can only guess that they did not want to politicize the US senate nor the SCOTUS. So what is next, we amend the constitution so we can start electing supreme court justices?
Direct election of Senators will never go away, ever. Besides, state legislatures usually have the power to elect who they want anyway for Senate, because they draw the district lines to their favor.
Thats not an answer, nor does it validate your statement as correct. Whats one to think about someone elses brain, if they cant respond to what was said?
There was no question, and you were all about trolling anyway. Nothing to do with the topic but getting personal, again.
There was no question, and you were all about trolling anyway. Nothing to do with the topic but getting personal, again.
I asked you where you learned that the founding fathers had a higher trust in government than the people, it was a question. I even followed it up with a question mark which even children recognize means its a question.
I didnt get personal, YOU DID.
Still waiting for you to answer the question and validate it as one bit accurate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
