17th Amendment

Have we discussed repeal of the 17th Amendment? Any interest in discussing it?

The 17th Amendment discontinued the Constitutionally-proscribed practice of having the various state legislatures send two Senators to Washington to serve for rotating six year terms. The Founders found a delicate balance served between the needs of the states as sovereign entities and the interests of the Federal government as a productive unit. That is, the House of Representatives is a more-or-less democratically elected bunch based on the population of the various states and assuming districts drawn based on the most recent census and nothing more. Therefore, candidates can address the various national issues that interest their constituents. Whereas the Senate would be a creature devoted to furthering the interests of the individual states and a slave to the various Legislatures thereof.

Among the abuses that prompted adoption of the 17th Amendment was the fact that John D. Rockefeller I, the great-grandfather of current U.S. Senator John D. Rockefeller number 4 paid the West Virginia Legislature (generally) ten thousand dollars ($10,000) an amount that was commonly considered wildly inflated to secure the election of one Johnson N. Camden as United States Senator. Like one of our more venerated posters here, Mr. Camden was a native of Braxton County. Ironically, John D. #4 paid thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) to secure the same seat for himself. I guess inflation would account for such a huge increase in fewer than one hundred years...

Nevertheless, there is a great deal of talk this cycle about repeal of the 17th Amendment. I seem to remember posting about it before but cannot find much activity. Any interest now?

I think the 17th should absolutely be repealed. It was a blow to states' rights and relevance to take the power away from state legislatures. To return the Senate to the state legislatures would better mean the Senators from a given state were more beholden to their particular states' wishes than to their party's wishes.

I would favor rescinding it OC as I don't believe even current Senators understand exactly what it is they are supposed to be fighting for. I recall hearing RCB say that the Senate was about the nations business when that was not the intent of our founding fathers. The Senate was created to do what was best for their respective states and not the people thereof. Lately though the Senate has become nothing more then an extended version of the House and that is not what our founding fathers desired.

If the Legislature that is selecting the Senators is dominated by one party, as in the case of WV, I fail to see how their appointing of Senators will reduce party loyalty.

Technology has changed the political landscape. When Constitution was written candidates didn't have the ability to communicate with the citizens the way they do today.

I find it odd that on the one hand we have this discussion, and on the other there is talk of doing away with the electoral college.

Stephanie wrote:If the Legislature that is selecting the Senators is dominated by one party, as in the case of WV, I fail to see how their appointing of Senators will reduce party loyalty.

Anytime the Legislators are mandated by Law to make a decision about what the "public wants" then they are taking a chance of being held personally liable for offending any and all voters that disagrees with their choice.

"DUH", that is the reason the Legislature has relegated their "Law making authority" on issues such as No Smoking Laws and Regulations to the un-elected County Health Boards.

I think Sam makes a good point there. Perhaps if the state legislature were to be held accountable for selecting our Senators in Washington, the citizenry would take a little more time in looking at who we send to Charleston knowing the role they play in who goes to Washington.

And the only people I know of who want to rescind the electoral college are liberals as they know if they can do that, they would control the White House simply by winning the major metropolitian areas and places like WV, RI and other small states would never see a campaign stop again. Heck, all we would see is what was carried on the national news.

Steph,

Consider the type of Senators that WV has sent, such as Mr Rockefeller. Byrd would likely have come from the Legislature anyway, but I doubt very much John D the Fifth would (even knowing the history of his pawpawpawpaw). You would have two Democratic Senators (like you do anyway), but you would likely have two who are more reflective of WV values, and would certainly worry more about doing right by WV than doing right by Harry and his 58 putzes.

I think the 17th should absolutely be repealed. It was a blow to states' rights and relevance to take the power away from state legislatures. To return the Senate to the state legislatures would better mean the Senators from a given state were more beholden to their particular states' wishes than to their party's wishes.

Surely you know better than that putting it in the hands of the state legislature would make it less partisan. I suggest that it would make it MORE partisan- that the majority party at the legislature would require partisan loyalty of those under its consideration for U.S. Senate .

So you have no problem placing the financing of all elections in these purely partisan legislatures Ziggy but not the choosing of our Senators.

After all, what would prevent these same partisan legislatures that would require party loyality in the selection of a Senator from requiring some sort of loyality in how they dole out the funds for campaigns?

The only way to take partisanism out of it is to do away with political parties as election vehicles. Do that, and I might then support legislative appointment of U.S. Senators.

Seems to me I recall OC posting a link to a story that some localities in North Carolina who wanted to do just that and was told by the Holder Justice Department that to do so was a violation of federal law as it would not allow voters to distinguish between black and white candidates.

Seems to me I recall OC posting a link to a story that some localities in North Carolina who wanted to do just that and was told by the Holder Justice Department that to do so was a violation of federal law as it would not allow voters to distinguish between black and white candidates.

????

Didn't see that.

I'd LOVE to see it be illegal to put party affiliation on ballots.

Here you go.

The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.

source

The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

That is some dumb-ass shit, right there.

In fairness, I can't believe too many republicans would support this, either.

The only time the two big parties agree on anything is when it comes to keeping third parties down.

TerryRC wrote:
In fairness, I can't believe too many republicans would support this, either.

Perhaps in other cases. Not in this one.

Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice Department's decision "racial as well as partisan."

Aaron wrote:Seems to me I recall OC posting a link to a story that some localities in North Carolina who wanted to do just that and was told by the Holder Justice Department that to do so was a violation of federal law as it would not allow voters to distinguish between black and white candidates.

If that is what the Holder Justice Department said, then I disagree with the Holder Justice Department. Very few cities in West Virginia hold partisan elections for their elected officials. And there are at least two county level offices that are elected on explicitly non-partisan ballots in West Virginia.

ziggy wrote: Do that, and I might then support legislative appointment of U.S. Senators.

There's not much about the COTUS that you do like, is there?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Seems to me I recall OC posting a link to a story that some localities in North Carolina who wanted to do just that and was told by the Holder Justice Department that to do so was a violation of federal law as it would not allow voters to distinguish between black and white candidates.

If that is what the Holder Justice Department said, then I disagree with the Holder Justice Department. Very few cities in West Virginia hold partisan elections for their elected officials. And there are at least two county level offices that are elected on explicitly non-partisan ballots in West Virginia.

There is no if. That is exactly what the Holder Justice Department stated.

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote: Do that, and I might then support legislative appointment of U.S. Senators.

There's not much about the COTUS that you do like, is there?

The COTUS makes no reference to political parties.

Forgot your meds again, huh?

No. Why do you ask? Because that happens to you often?

While the Constitution indeed makes no reference to political parties, partisan politics have been around since the dawn of this country and are as American as mom, apple pie and baseball.

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson called John Adams blind, bald, crippled and toothless, and stated Adams had the air of European Royalty. His best attack ad simply stated "Haven't we had enough Monarchy?"

Adams responded by calling Jefferson a murderer and adulterer and accused him of rape, incest and robbery and stated that if Jefferson were elected, the US would be "dwelling in flames", female "chaisty would be violated" and that children would be "writhing on a pike."

It was one of the bitterest campaigns in history and was characterized by personal attacks and slander.

source

And for those who say they oppose partisan politics, it's interesting that in most of our lifetimes, the only time we've had a semblance of fiscal responsibility was during the most partisan of times.

Here's hoping John Boehmer becomes so partisan that he shuts the government down for about 6 months and that when they do get it going, nothing from either agenda gets passed for at least 6 more years.

ziggy wrote:No. Why do you ask? Because that happens to you often?

NO, t'was because you posted an illrelevant, .... and thus quite immaterialy dumb, ..... statement.

You might as well have said:

"The COTUS makes no reference to astronaut training".

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:No. Why do you ask? Because that happens to you often?

NO, t'was because you posted an illrelevant, .... and thus quite immaterialy dumb, ..... statement.

Oh, you mean like you did here:

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote: The only way to take partisanism out of it is to do away with political parties as election vehicles. Do that, and I might then support legislative appointment of U.S. Senators.

There's not much about the COTUS that you do like, is there?

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:No. Why do you ask? Because that happens to you often?

NO, t'was because you posted an illrelevant, .... and thus quite immaterialy dumb, ..... statement.

Oh, you mean like you did here:

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote: The only way to take partisanism out of it is to do away with political parties as election vehicles. Do that, and I might then support legislative appointment of U.S. Senators.

There's not much about the COTUS that you do like, is there?

Personally I have to agree with Sam. It certainly doesn't appear that there is much of the US Constitution you do like.