Clean Up The Senate: Make Them Ineligible To Run For President!

[Annie]

I like this idea:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9158824/#050915

Repeal the seventeenth amendment?
How can we build a better Senate?

• September 15, 2005 | 10:18 AM ET

Tuesday's post collected a lot of reasons why the Senate hasn't been distinguishing itself in the Roberts hearings. In fact, I haven't seen anyone -- with the exception of some self-congratulation by the Senators on the Judiciary Committee -- who's impressed with the job that those Senators are doing. They talk too much, they listen too little, and they often -- despite having had weeks to prepare, and despite, presumably, being the best legal minds in the Senate -- get the law wrong. (Sometimes they even get baseball wrong.) It's enough to make you lose faith in the institution.

It's even enough to get some people calling for a repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment, which required direct popular election of Senators, whose selection was previously left in the hands of state legislatures.

I don't know what I think of this idea -- you want to think that anything would be an improvement over what we've got now, but heck, that's probably what people thought when we ratified the Seventeenth Amendment -- but I have heard it proposed more than once recently. (Some somewhat more serious criticism of the Seventeenth Amendment can be found here.) And this is surely a bad reflection on the Senate as it exists now.

My own proposal for reform would be a bit different: Make anyone who serves in the Senate ineligible to run for President. That wouldn't be much of a loss, really -- Senators do very badly in the Presidential election business anyway. But while legislatively selected Senators might have been smart guys, or at least politically wise men, Senators elected in statewide races are likely to be ambitious politicians who see the Senate as a stepping stone. My proposal would steer those people elsewhere, which might improve the Senate.

It's a pipe dream, I suppose, but I suspect that we'll see more proposals to do something. Because whether or not they confirm Judge Roberts, the Senate seems to have already confirmed some people's low opinions.

 

[pegwinn]

I like this idea:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9158824/#050915

Me Too

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 It needs to be repealed.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.

 

[Annie]

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.

 

[KarlMarx]

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.....

 

[Annie]

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!

 

[William Joyce]

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.

 

[Annie]

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!

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

 

[pegwinn]

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.......

 

[doniston]

Me Too

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 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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

You would be wrong. State laws codify by what manner and by whom Electors are chosen. In the States with winner take all, the party that won gets to select the electors and the legislature must appoint them or allow said party to replace those found wanting.

Further most States also REQUIRE by law that the electors MUST vote x number of times for the State winner. Varies by State how many rounds they must vote for the winner.

 

[pegwinn]

You would be wrong. State laws codify by what manner and by whom Electors are chosen. In the States with winner take all, the party that won gets to select the electors and the legislature must appoint them or allow said party to replace those found wanting.

Further most States also REQUIRE by law that the electors MUST vote x number of times for the State winner. Varies by State how many rounds they must vote for the winner.

No offense Guns, but actually only about half the states have chosen to bind the electors. And, even then there is a theory that the binding is unenforceable. Check this out. The whole thread is really good, but the post I linked spells out this part of the discussion.

 

[pegwinn]

I disagree with both of you. Fair Enough

Making them ineligable to run for pres is an unneccesary and unproductive step. Why is that?

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. Not according to the original intent prior to the 17th amendment.
The respesentatives are the ones who are responsible to their own constituants, NOT the senators. That is correct according to pre-17th amendment rules. Post 17th amendment makes them directly elected and thus they can be "not rehired" if you will due to a vengeful poopulace.

I've explained in detail why I believe todays system is flawed in comparison to the original intent. Can you clarify your position please?

 

[82Marine89]

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.

Sorry, but the POTUS represents the United States of America, the senators represent the state government, and the House represents the citizens of this great country.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Good idea.

I think republicans should make it their national platform to abolish the ability of americans to popularly elect their senators, by abolishing the 17th amendment, and to propose a new amendment to make it illegal for US senators to seek the presidency.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No offense Guns, but actually only about half the states have chosen to bind the electors. And, even then there is a theory that the binding is unenforceable. Check this out. The whole thread is really good, but the post I linked spells out this part of the discussion.

Does not change the fact that every State has laws that specify how and who becomes Electors and in the States with winner take all the nominees are always from the winning party. Joyce made the claim that States can just ignore the election and send anybody they chose.Doesn't happen and is codified NOT to happen.

One could in fact make a legal claim that a Republican form of Government was denied if in fact a State Legislature did not abide by the votes in the State. That then would make it a Federal case and a responsibility of the Federal Government to intervene. You may want to read up on that.

 

[pegwinn]

Does not change the fact that every State has laws that specify how and who becomes Electors and in the States with winner take all the nominees are always from the winning party. Joyce made the claim that States can just ignore the election and send anybody they chose. Doesn't happen and is codified NOT to happen.

One could in fact make a legal claim that a Republican form of Government was denied if in fact a State Legislature did not abide by the votes in the State. That then would make it a Federal case and a responsibility of the Federal Government to intervene. You may want to read up on that.

One could also demonstrate that there is no constitutional or federal requirement for the electors to do anything but select the President. Without binding laws in the states, the electors can do as they please. That they haven't doesn't mean that they can't.