Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[Darkwind]

Because its harder to buy a whole states legislature than 2 Senators.............not impossible but harder.........
.

???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.

Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.

but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...

senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?

They can be voted out..........yes............after the term.................years later............

Under the old they could be recalled immediately and fired within days if they voted against the State Legislature.
You vote in the State Legislature............so you don't trust those you vote in there...........perhaps they need to be recalled by the people................no

i just googled it...the us constitution made no recall provision for senators or congressmen....

THAT INCLUDES the state legislators....according to the constitution?

NEITHER can recall them from what I have read so far, so your argument doesn't work anymore, about the state legislators recalling them if they don't do as they say....

Federal Constitution has no authority over State legislators. They are controlled and governed by the State Constitutions.

If recall or removal can be had, it will be found in each state Constitution. Not in the federal one.

 

[Foxfyre]

No need, all that is needed is for the Justices Sitting on the Supreme court to interpret the constitutionality of a law.

But who sits in judgment of the Supreme Court justices? When you have a narrow margin of five out of nine justices, those five coming from a particular partisan group, who is to say that they rule honestly and justly? Especially when the other four are saying what they are doing is in opposition to Constitutional law?

And when you have nine justices all appointed by and ratified by extreme partisans who approve them on the basis of the justice's partisanship, do you think it wise that five justices who enjoy lifetime tenure and are for all practical purposes unchallengable should be the arbitrators of what laws government passes are legal laws? Or should have power to write their own law and impose it on all the people? And give the people no recourse whatsoever to protect themselves from an overreaching government or overreaching court?

What is the difference between that and a dictatorship?

 

[Foxfyre]

I would remind the members who are searching for the sustainable point of view here, that you can change your vote in the poll.

 

[Darkwind]

No need, all that is needed is for the Justices Sitting on the Supreme court to interpret the constitutionality of a law.

But who sits in judgment of the Supreme Court justices? When you have a narrow margin of five out of nine justices, those five coming from a particular partisan group, who is to say that they rule honestly and justly? Especially when the other four are saying what they are doing is in opposition to Constitutional law?

And when you have nine justices all appointed by and ratified by extreme partisans who approve them on the basis of the justice's partisanship, do you think it wise that five justices who enjoy lifetime tenure and are for all practical purposes unchallengable should be the arbitrators of what laws government passes are legal laws? Or should have power to write their own law and impose it on all the people? And give the people no recourse whatsoever to protect themselves from an overreaching government or overreaching court?

What is the difference between that and a dictatorship?

True, but you have to understand that the SCOTUS is NOT the final say on law or legislation. They reject the law or legislation IN ITS CURRENT FORM....meaning that they are kicking it back to the Congress or the States to rewrite the law so that it passes scrutiny.

 

[eagle1462010]

Articles Two Tweaks to the Constitution

Before the 17th Amendment (1913), U.S. senators were chosen by state legislatures. This amendment to directly elect U.S. senators was a very, very bad idea. There have been calls to repeal it, even in the Senate. In a fiery address in April 2004, Georgia Senator Zell Miller, a Democrat, introduced a measure to repeal:

The 17th amendment was the death of the careful balance between State and Federal Government. As designed by that brilliant and very practical group of Founding Fathers, the two governments would be in competition with each other and neither could abuse or threaten the other. The election of Senators by the State legislatures was the lynchpin that guaranteed the interests of the States would be protected.

Since the Senate never voted on Sen. Miller's measure, S.J. Res. 35, let's add a feature to it: the ability of state legislatures to recall and replace their U.S. senators.

Beyond treason and corruption, there are many reasons why a U.S. senator should be recalled. Recently, we've seen a fair amount of illness in the Senate: Sen. Kennedy's malignant glioma (brain cancer), Sen. Johnson's inter-cranial bleeding, Sen. Biden's aneurysms, etc. (Should America have to tolerate brain damage in what's billed as "the world's greatest deliberative body"?) Also, some senators are just too old. Sen. Strom Thurman set the Senate record at 100 years. Sen. Byrd is President pro tem of the Senate, therefore third in the line of succession to the Presidency. Byrd has been in the Senate for 50 years; he'll have his 92nd birthday this November. Our gerontocracy almost resembles those of the Soviets and the Red Chinese.

Because of the 17th Amendment, U.S. senators "own" their jobs. If a senator becomes incapacitated, a state will just have to accept not having representation. Because of the 17th Amendment, Minnesota had only half representation for more than 6 months while the 2008 election was contested, and is now represented by a comedian. Because of the 17th Amendment, Illinois has a U.S. senator chosen by a single man; a governor who was later impeached and removed. Is that a logical way to choose any representative?


Read more: Articles Two Tweaks to the Constitution
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[Care4all]

Again- why do you trust the State legislators more than the voters?

Frankly, State legislators are cheaper to buy than voters.

Because its harder to buy a whole states legislature than 2 Senators.............not impossible but harder.........
.

???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.

Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.

but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...

senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?

State legislators are more responsive to the will of their constituents than nations legislator.

If a state legislature has a partisan agenda, it is because the people want that agenda.

As it stands now, (your assertion not withstanding), Senators do NOT answer to their constituents (the people of their State) but to the monied interests. A lot of that corruption can be eliminated by returning the Senate back to doing the bidding of their State.

Sorry, but State Legislators are Chock full of cronyism, and being paid by lobbyists as well...at least with me choosing my US Senator, none of those cronies and lobbyists get to choose for me....at least it is a direct vote for my Senators by me and by all the citizens within our State, without the Partisan and gold lining pockets of the legislator's...

 

[Foxfyre]

No need, all that is needed is for the Justices Sitting on the Supreme court to interpret the constitutionality of a law.

But who sits in judgment of the Supreme Court justices? When you have a narrow margin of five out of nine justices, those five coming from a particular partisan group, who is to say that they rule honestly and justly? Especially when the other four are saying what they are doing is in opposition to Constitutional law?

And when you have nine justices all appointed by and ratified by extreme partisans who approve them on the basis of the justice's partisanship, do you think it wise that five justices who enjoy lifetime tenure and are for all practical purposes unchallengable should be the arbitrators of what laws government passes are legal laws? Or should have power to write their own law and impose it on all the people? And give the people no recourse whatsoever to protect themselves from an overreaching government or overreaching court?

What is the difference between that and a dictatorship?

True, but you have to understand that the SCOTUS is NOT the final say on law or legislation. They reject the law or legislation IN ITS CURRENT FORM....meaning that they are kicking it back to the Congress or the States to rewrite the law so that it passes scrutiny.

Are they? I guess I haven't seen much of that. What I have seen that once SCOTUS rules, that is deemed the law of the land and as often as not it bypasses Congress and the President entirely.

 

[eagle1462010]

It seems Care4all got it right according to this article............on the recall issue............seems only 1 case since the Civil War.

I still would rather have it the way it was..............and would add the ability to recall via Amendment.

 

[Darkwind]

No need, all that is needed is for the Justices Sitting on the Supreme court to interpret the constitutionality of a law.

But who sits in judgment of the Supreme Court justices? When you have a narrow margin of five out of nine justices, those five coming from a particular partisan group, who is to say that they rule honestly and justly? Especially when the other four are saying what they are doing is in opposition to Constitutional law?

And when you have nine justices all appointed by and ratified by extreme partisans who approve them on the basis of the justice's partisanship, do you think it wise that five justices who enjoy lifetime tenure and are for all practical purposes unchallengable should be the arbitrators of what laws government passes are legal laws? Or should have power to write their own law and impose it on all the people? And give the people no recourse whatsoever to protect themselves from an overreaching government or overreaching court?

What is the difference between that and a dictatorship?

True, but you have to understand that the SCOTUS is NOT the final say on law or legislation. They reject the law or legislation IN ITS CURRENT FORM....meaning that they are kicking it back to the Congress or the States to rewrite the law so that it passes scrutiny.

Are they? I guess I haven't seen much of that. What I have seen that once SCOTUS rules, that is deemed the law of the land and as often as not it bypasses Congress and the President entirely.

Actually, what happens more often than not is that Congress just doesn't bother to rework the legislation because in today's environment, the law that was shot down barely passed to begin with.

 

[Darkwind]

Because its harder to buy a whole states legislature than 2 Senators.............not impossible but harder.........
.

???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.

Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.

but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...

senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?

State legislators are more responsive to the will of their constituents than nations legislator.

If a state legislature has a partisan agenda, it is because the people want that agenda.

As it stands now, (your assertion not withstanding), Senators do NOT answer to their constituents (the people of their State) but to the monied interests. A lot of that corruption can be eliminated by returning the Senate back to doing the bidding of their State.

Sorry, but State Legislators are Chock full of cronyism, and being paid by lobbyists as well...at least with me choosing my US Senator, none of those cronies and lobbyists get to choose for me....at least it is a direct vote for my Senator by me and by all the citizens within our State, without the Partisan and gold lining pockets of the legislator's...

But you're wrong. You didn't chose them....money did. If the people who you elect to your state legislature cannot be trusted to do what you want, that is on you, not the rest of the nation.

Besides, the current system is just as corrupt and you still don't get a say in the matter. A single vote vs an incumbent who has the money to keep from being beat is better in what way?

 

[Darkwind]

The one thing that seems to be getting lost here is the fact that US Senators are to do the bidding of their States; not of the people in general. There is a purpose and reason for that. The States are entities that have interests that MUST be protected as well as the people do.

 

[Care4all]

???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.

Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.

but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...

senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?

They can be voted out..........yes............after the term.................years later............

Under the old they could be recalled immediately and fired within days if they voted against the State Legislature.
You vote in the State Legislature............so you don't trust those you vote in there...........perhaps they need to be recalled by the people................no

i just googled it...the us constitution made no recall provision for senators or congressmen....

THAT INCLUDES the state legislators....according to the constitution?

NEITHER can recall them from what I have read so far, so your argument doesn't work anymore, about the state legislators recalling them if they don't do as they say....

Federal Constitution has no authority over State legislators. They are controlled and governed by the State Constitutions.

If recall or removal can be had, it will be found in each state Constitution. Not in the federal one.

NOPE....

these are US Senators who are elected and have power according to the US Constitution, and I just read that the founders discussed a recall measure for US congressmen and US Senators while creating the constitution and THEY DECIDED that there should not be a recall measure.

 

[Care4all]

Again- why do you trust the State legislators more than the voters?

Frankly, State legislators are cheaper to buy than voters.

Because its harder to buy a whole states legislature than 2 Senators.............not impossible but harder.........
.

???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.

Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.

but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...

senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?

State legislators are more responsive to the will of their constituents than nations legislator.

If a state legislature has a partisan agenda, it is because the people want that agenda.

As it stands now, (your assertion not withstanding), Senators do NOT answer to their constituents (the people of their State) but to the monied interests. A lot of that corruption can be eliminated by returning the Senate back to doing the bidding of their State.

You may have been fooled in to believing that your State representation is closer to what the people within the State want and implying it is "cleaner" than federal politics is sorely wrong....the most dirtiest and corrupt and deceiving governments of we the people, happen at the State and local levels....

think of the term Chicago politics or Illinois politics.... it's like this in most States.

 

[Darkwind]

Because its harder to buy a whole states legislature than 2 Senators.............not impossible but harder.........
.

???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.

Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.

but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...

senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?

State legislators are more responsive to the will of their constituents than nations legislator.

If a state legislature has a partisan agenda, it is because the people want that agenda.

As it stands now, (your assertion not withstanding), Senators do NOT answer to their constituents (the people of their State) but to the monied interests. A lot of that corruption can be eliminated by returning the Senate back to doing the bidding of their State.

You may have been fooled in to believing that your State representation is closer to what the people within the State want and implying it is "cleaner" than federal politics is sorely wrong....the most dirtiest and corrupt and deceiving governments of we the people, happen at the State and local levels....

think of the term Chicago politics or Illinois politics.... it's like this in most States.

I think you are conditioned into believing that, but that doesn't really matter. I know that state government is more responsive to the people than national government and it is My beliefs that I act upon, not the beliefs of others.

 

[Darkwind]

Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.

but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...

senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?

They can be voted out..........yes............after the term.................years later............

Under the old they could be recalled immediately and fired within days if they voted against the State Legislature.
You vote in the State Legislature............so you don't trust those you vote in there...........perhaps they need to be recalled by the people................no

i just googled it...the us constitution made no recall provision for senators or congressmen....

THAT INCLUDES the state legislators....according to the constitution?

NEITHER can recall them from what I have read so far, so your argument doesn't work anymore, about the state legislators recalling them if they don't do as they say....

Federal Constitution has no authority over State legislators. They are controlled and governed by the State Constitutions.

If recall or removal can be had, it will be found in each state Constitution. Not in the federal one.

NOPE....

these are US Senators who are elected and have power according to the US Constitution, and I just read that the founders discussed a recall measure for US congressmen and US Senators while creating the constitution and THEY DECIDED that there should not be a recall measure.

When ratifying the US Constitution, it was a requirement that the States, as representative bodies, be represented in the US Congress.

Plain and simple, the States have interests that require looking after and that is why they set the US Senate up to consist of Senators elected by State Legislatures to conduct themselves in the interests of their states, not in the interests of the people of that state.

The people have a chamber of congress to look after their interests. Its called the US House of Representatives.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Citizen Warren Michelsen, believes all branches--executive, legislative, and judicial--of the U.S. federal government have overstepped their constitutional authority, he proposes that the American people move to restore the power to self govern that the Constitution originally intended.

A recent Harris poll suggests a majority of Americans agree with him: Supreme Court SCOTUS lifetime appointment Harris

He has provided an in depth, lengthy and well thought out argument to support his opinion here: Amending the Constitution

His basic thesis is that five out of nine Supreme Court justices should not have the uncontested power to determine the fate or destiny of all the people, nor should the federal government at any level have the sole power to judge the legality of government action at any level. Further the federal government should be required to provide much more consensus as to the legality of the legislation it passes before that legislation is imposed upon the people.

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed to restore power to the people:

Section 1. When the number of states exceeding twenty-five percent of all the United States shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions.

Section 2. When any state shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that state may, at its option, prohibit enforcement of that enactment within its borders.

Section 3. Every Bill which shall be considered by the House of Representatives or the Senate, shall, before it come to a vote, be subjected to scrutiny so as to ascertain that said Bill is not in conflict with this Constitution. Whenever one third of either House shall find the Bill to be in conflict, it shall require that three quarters of that House vote Yea before the Bill be considered passed.​

The OP at this time is not ready to declare an opinion on whether Michelsen is right in part or in whole about that, but rather would throws it open for consideration, evaluation, and discussion. Disclosure: This discussion has been offered at a different site in addition to this one as as an experiment.

QUESTION TO BE DISCUSSED:

Do you or do you not wholly or in part support Michelsen's proposed Amendment as written to limit the power of government and return that power to the people? Why or why not.?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic please with no ad hominem or personal insults directed at any person, group, demographic, state, ideology, or political party allowed. The topic is summarized in the Question to be discussed and can include any of the statements or arguments provided in the OP or the two links provided.

2. To avoid getting bogged down in semantics, as deemed necessary, the OP reserves the right to define words, terms, or phrases for the purposes of this discussion only.

3. Links are not required to participate in this discussion, but if they are used, please provide a brief synopsis of what the member will learn if they click on the link.

The consequences of #2 is pretty easy to see if we look back on history.

If this amendment in place- mixed race couples would have been banned from getting married in Virginia and Georgia until the mid 1990's.
If this amendment were in place- there would be states where guns were effectively banned from private ownership.
If this amendment were in place- Americans would not have had access to contraceptives in many states for another 20 years.

And using the same argument, Dred Scott and Plessy, absolutely horrible SCOTUS rulings, would not have had to be enforced in the states who did not agree with them.

Actually that is a good point.

And there is where we could start- if the states had refused to obey Dred Scott..- and agreed upon abomination of a ruling, 25% of the country-
the Confederate States- would have declared that decision null and void.

Leaving us back where were were- where individual states do whatever they want regardless of the Bill of Rights- and blocks of states can block enforcement of the Constitution.

Ah, but the Bill of Rights is already part of the Constitution so the states would have no jurisdiction to override any part of that. It is only laws and rulings outside of the existing constitution that the people themselves could determine whether such laws or rulings were constitutional or not.

The proposed amendment does not give the people authority to override the Constitution. It only gives them power to enforce it.

Again- the Supreme Court decides when a law violates the Bill of Rights or not- and the proposed initiative would allow States to ignore a Supreme Court ruling- which would result in States being able to ignore the Bill of Rights.

Correct.

And by doing so ignore the rule of law, the cornerstone of our Constitutional Republic.

Indeed, the proposed 'amendment' should be rejected for that reason alone, as it in essence seeks to end our republican form of government, where citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly.

A citizen residing in a given state does not forfeit his inalienable rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor do the residents of a state have the authority to decide who will or will not have his inalienable rights, where the 'remedy' is not to compel citizens to leave their state of residence because that state seeks to violate their inalienable rights, as the right to move freely about the country and live in any jurisdiction one so desires is also a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution.

The proposed 'amendment' would be anathema to citizens' inalienable rights, rights that can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

It is understood that there are those who have been frustrated over the years with Supreme Court decisions perceived to 'overrule' the 'will of the people,' this year in particular. But those with such a perception must realize that we are a Constitutional Republic, not a collection of 50 independent countries, one Nation, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law acknowledge and codified by one Federal Constitution which manifest as the law of the land, binding on all 50 states – the necessary and proper Constitutional jurisprudence designed to safeguard our inalienable rights rendering them immune from unwarranted attack by government.

 

[eagle1462010]

Because its harder to buy a whole states legislature than 2 Senators.............not impossible but harder.........
.

???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.

Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.

but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...

senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?

State legislators are more responsive to the will of their constituents than nations legislator.

If a state legislature has a partisan agenda, it is because the people want that agenda.

As it stands now, (your assertion not withstanding), Senators do NOT answer to their constituents (the people of their State) but to the monied interests. A lot of that corruption can be eliminated by returning the Senate back to doing the bidding of their State.

You may have been fooled in to believing that your State representation is closer to what the people within the State want and implying it is "cleaner" than federal politics is sorely wrong....the most dirtiest and corrupt and deceiving governments of we the people, happen at the State and local levels....

think of the term Chicago politics or Illinois politics.... it's like this in most States.

If we cannot even fix local and state politics for the corrupt policies, then there is no way we can fix it at a Federal Level...............

To me it's a hell of a lot easier to vote out my local reps to the state than others..............and without the 17th Amendment it would make that vote even more important than it is now................

Either way...............the intent under the original Constitution was the voice of the state legislative bodies.
If all of them are corrupt at every level then we may as well throw in the towel and give the hell up. Which seems to be the going consensus in this country.

Which brings me back to if we elect unethical men and women to represent us, then no form of gov't will work.

 

[Syriusly]

No need, all that is needed is for the Justices Sitting on the Supreme court to interpret the constitutionality of a law.

But who sits in judgment of the Supreme Court justices? When you have a narrow margin of five out of nine justices, those five coming from a particular partisan group, who is to say that they rule honestly and justly? Especially when the other four are saying what they are doing is in opposition to Constitutional law?

And when you have nine justices all appointed by and ratified by extreme partisans who approve them on the basis of the justice's partisanship, do you think it wise that five justices who enjoy lifetime tenure and are for all practical purposes unchallengable should be the arbitrators of what laws government passes are legal laws? Or should have power to write their own law and impose it on all the people? And give the people no recourse whatsoever to protect themselves from an overreaching government or overreaching court?

What is the difference between that and a dictatorship?

Do you really not know the difference?

Do you really need us to explain the difference?

 

[Syriusly]

but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...

senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?

They can be voted out..........yes............after the term.................years later............

Under the old they could be recalled immediately and fired within days if they voted against the State Legislature.
You vote in the State Legislature............so you don't trust those you vote in there...........perhaps they need to be recalled by the people................no

i just googled it...the us constitution made no recall provision for senators or congressmen....

THAT INCLUDES the state legislators....according to the constitution?

NEITHER can recall them from what I have read so far, so your argument doesn't work anymore, about the state legislators recalling them if they don't do as they say....

Federal Constitution has no authority over State legislators. They are controlled and governed by the State Constitutions.

If recall or removal can be had, it will be found in each state Constitution. Not in the federal one.

NOPE....

these are US Senators who are elected and have power according to the US Constitution, and I just read that the founders discussed a recall measure for US congressmen and US Senators while creating the constitution and THEY DECIDED that there should not be a recall measure.

When ratifying the US Constitution, it was a requirement that the States, as representative bodies, be represented in the US Congress.

Plain and simple, the States have interests that require looking after and that is why they set the US Senate up to consist of Senators elected by State Legislatures to conduct themselves in the interests of their states, not in the interests of the people of that state.

The people have a chamber of congress to look after their interests. Its called the US House of Representatives.

And now the people have two chambers who look after their interests- as per the Constitution.

 

[Darkwind]

???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.

Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.

but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...

senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?

State legislators are more responsive to the will of their constituents than nations legislator.

If a state legislature has a partisan agenda, it is because the people want that agenda.

As it stands now, (your assertion not withstanding), Senators do NOT answer to their constituents (the people of their State) but to the monied interests. A lot of that corruption can be eliminated by returning the Senate back to doing the bidding of their State.

You may have been fooled in to believing that your State representation is closer to what the people within the State want and implying it is "cleaner" than federal politics is sorely wrong....the most dirtiest and corrupt and deceiving governments of we the people, happen at the State and local levels....

think of the term Chicago politics or Illinois politics.... it's like this in most States.

If we cannot even fix local and state politics for the corrupt policies, then there is no way we can fix it at a Federal Level...............

To me it's a hell of a lot easier to vote out my local reps to the state than others..............and without the 17th Amendment it would make that vote even more important than it is now................

Either way...............the intent under the original Constitution was the voice of the state legislative bodies.
If all of them are corrupt at every level then we may as well throw in the towel and give the hell up. Which seems to be the going consensus in this country.

Which brings me back to if we elect unethical men and women to represent us, then no form of gov't will work.

In truth, we get the government we elect.

If the people are corrupted, or follow a corrupted morality, there is little help that we'll elect an ethical or moral government.

It starts with us first.