Thread: Results of 17th Amendment?

With the recent events in the Senate, are we witnessing the Senate being corrupt and being controlled by special interest groups as a result of the 17th amendment? Should the 17th amendment be repealed to make the Senate like the framers of the Constitution intended?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/750201/posts

Originally Posted by patbrunz

With the recent events in the Senate, are we witnessing the Senate being corrupt and being controlled by special interest groups as a result of the 17th amendment? Should the 17th amendment be repealed to make the Senate like the framers of the Constitution intended?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/750201/posts

OH, ITS THE FREE REPUBLIC CONNECTION. SHOULD WE BE HONEST OR PLAY DUMB? If I go there, I'll get banned- no matter what I say! If you dont love so-and-so, you are thru!

I believe that we should in fact return to state appointment of senators. I have previously made my reasons clear.

Originally Posted by butterbean

Originally Posted by patbrunz

With the recent events in the Senate, are we witnessing the Senate being corrupt and being controlled by special interest groups as a result of the 17th amendment? Should the 17th amendment be repealed to make the Senate like the framers of the Constitution intended?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/750201/posts

OH, ITS THE FREE REPUBLIC CONNECTION. SHOULD WE BE HONEST OR PLAY DUMB? If I go there, I'll get banned- no matter what I say! If you dont love so-and-so, you are thru!

Umm. . . I have no clue what the heck you are talking about. I have no connection with freerepublic, I just found that link with a Google search while researching the 17th amendment and I thought it was well written. If there are issues with freerepublic, I apologize for offending anyone.

You mean our state representatives appointing our federal representatives?

As the United States copes with massive protests over proposals to tighten immigration laws, anti-immigrant sentiment across Europe is prompting politicians to consider their own clampdowns.

The most recent target of that sentiment was Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair, whose Labor Party suffered its worst setback since 1968 in local elections last week.

The party has blamed various issues for its defeat, which prompted a full-scale Cabinet shuffle on Friday.

But political analysts said there was no mistaking the chief role immigration played in swaying voters toward parties that vow to tighten the rules on asylum seekers and foreign residents deemed to be undesirable.

"Of course, the elephant in the room ... is immigration," the conservative Daily Mail said in an editorial. "Britain has lost control of its borders."

The British media hammered Blair's government leading up to the election after reports emerged that authorities had failed to deport more than 1,000 foreigners who had committed serious crimes in Britain since 1999. Instead, those foreigners were freed after serving prison terms, with many of them returning to the streets to commit even more heinous crimes, including rape and murder.

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/ne ... 524723.htm

Originally Posted by nntrixie

You mean our state representatives appointing our federal representatives?

Correct. As originally created, the Senate consisted of two representatives appointed by the legislature of each state. The Senate existed to protect the interests of the several states, while the House existed to represent the will of the People. This was done because it was feared that a powerful central government would be able to sway an electorate into granting it more power while diminishing the sovereignty of the states and acting contrary their individual interests.

Originally Posted by nntrixie

You mean our state representatives appointing our federal representatives?

Only your state's two senators, as the Constitution said it should be, until it was changed in 1913 by the 17th Amendment, which totally changed the balance of power between the Federal government and the states. Read the link I posted and/or do a Google search and research it to get more info.

I only brought it up because I think the Senate's catering to special interests ( for example, the pro-illegal, open borders lobby in this instance) is a direct result of the 17th Amendment.

I believe you and I vaguely remember that.

The only problem with that is the recent example of the travesty the RNC and Tom DeLay pulled in TExas.

The Texas government has been nothing more than an arm of the RNC and Bush administration, for the last few years.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I do see flaws.

Originally Posted by nntrixie

I believe you and I vaguely remember that.

The only problem with that is the recent example of the travesty the RNC and Tom DeLay pulled in TExas.

The Texas government has been nothing more than an arm of the RNC and Bush administration, for the last few years.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I do see flaws.

To what travesty are you referring? If you mean redistricting, I would suggest that you look at the previous gerrymander maintained for decades by the Democrats in Texas before you pass judgment. Payback is no fun for the recipient.