Discussion in 'Politics' started by Annie, Sep 15, 2005.
I like this idea:
This is a bad amendment. It needs to be repealed. In the beginning the Senators (appointed by the State Legislatures) acted to counterbalance the popular view as personified by the House. In those days a mans loyalty was to his state more than a federal government. While not stated in the Constitution, the Senate was effectively a cabal of Ambassadors. This insured that the STATE itself was represented at the federal level.
Picture this scene today. If the Legislature of Texas selects two people to be Senators they are going to be consulting with that legislature and the Governor. When the Senator speaks, he will speak with the Governors voice.
I believe that selecting Senators is the right path because it will reinforce what few states rights there are. I think that this is a republic which will balance the democracy. I think that the selection will reduce the amount of influence of special interest groups in DC as well.
For those who would freak about a government official being selected vice elected, all I can say is.................EEEEEE ZEEEEEEE Turbo, put down the ray gun. Imagine the scads of public officials you don't vote for now. Judges, Ambassadors, Police Chiefs, City Managers etc. I don't think we are losing too much. Especially since it was originally that way in the Constitution. Remember I am advocating a return to the original intent here.
I do believe in term limits for elected officials. Too bad the USSC says the states have no rights to limit the service of their own reps. That decision is what started me thinking about this. Congress is accountable to people who by and large don't vote. And if they screw it up, they still manage to get reelected. Look at Kerry/Kennedy
I think that if Senators were appointed there would be limits. Ambassadors normally don't serve forever unless they are very good. They don't survive the turnover in the legislature. Imagine the Good Senator from Mass dunking a car in the drink. The state could "recall" him as he doesn't represent the image the elected body of mass would like to portray. I believe you would have some rich folk, like Kennedy, who would buy a Senatorial seat buy supporting a certain candidate for Governor. Happens with Ambassadors at the Fed level now. Just shows I am not using the rose colored glasses today.
Under the founders intent, the Senator was to convey to Congress the will of the STATE (embodied in the form of the governing body of the state). The House was to represent the will of the people directly (preventing Kentucky as a state from depriving the people a direct voice in the federal system).
Under the current system the people are supposedly represented by both houses. It ain't true. Yet Arnold from CA has no say. He should, the federal government is a federation of STATES. This is as much a states rights issue as anything else.
I could go along with repeal, but think people have less idea of whom they are electing statewide than federal. I guess that is why I like the abolition of Senators running for President. Too cool and easy. Won't happen, but would save lots of steps.
There should be an amendment that, once each year, every Senator and Congress person has to kiss the feet of all their constituents. It will not only keep them humble and help them to realize that THEY work for US (not the other way around) but it will give them such a bad case of chapped lips that they won't have much of a chance to shoot off their mouths during the following year.....
Something to this!
No doubt the Senate ain't what it used to be. Once upon a time, you could count on Representatives being the "down and dirty" guys, and Senators being the refined ones. No more. Senators are just as low-brow --- and in some cases, lower-brow --- than Representatives.
Here's what I think is funny, speaking of state legislature vs. direct election: there is no prohibition on a state legislature choosing whom to vote for for President, instead of the population of the state by popular election. In other words, in 2000, Florida could have decided to scrap the popular election and just go with whoever the state legislature chose.
The MSM would scream, but it'd be legal.
I think you may be right. OMG, that is pure evil, in a Machiavellian way!
I see one big problem with any such amendment ever being passed: The Senate.
Seriously do you think they are going to vote for an ammendment that will limit their power?
No the only one way we are going to do this is if we get a grass root movement to call a Constitutional Convention and bypass the Senate altogether.
We need to call one anyway. The states need to take their power back.
Bump since we have senators running for prez. and I like the topic and it dovetails with this post in another thread. At least re-read posts 1 and 2.
Ready on the Left?
Ready on the Right?
All ready on the firing line.......
I disagree with both of you. Making them ineligable to run for pres is an unneccesary and unproductive step. While I agree that the senate is not doing a bang up job, the main Idea of the senator is to represernt "ALL" the people of the nation, not just the state which happened to elect them. The respesentatives are the ones who are responsible to their own constituants, NOT the senators.
Separate names with a comma.