17th Amendment

As evidenced by what? I have supported the Constitution and the Courts that have upheld its provisions far more than you have, Cato.

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.

What? I thought you wanted to take "money" out of the process. I always believed you meant you wanted to take political partisanship out of the process. Frankly I'm not sure what the hell you want. I'll assume you want to take 'partisanism' out of the process just as you say.

In making the U.S. Senate a shadow of the House, it invites special interests to come to Washington, D.C. to make their case. If U.S. Senators were sent by their respective state legislatures, special interests would be forced to go to the various state capitals and make their cases. Since spending any money to elect a candidate to the U.S. Senate would be illegal, it would end the very process to which you object. Abolition of the 17th Amendment is right up your proverbial alleyway.

ziggy wrote:As evidenced by what? I have supported the Constitution and the Courts that have upheld its provisions far more than you have, Cato.

I imagine you have supported the courts since a good part of their rulings have been anti-constitutional.

I'm curious Ziggy as to what your response is to OC's comments.

I'm thinking about it. Somehow OC often helps me to think first, and to show my ignorance later rather than sooner.

I've found, although seldom practiced it, that thinking first and posting later is good.

Some of us lack impulse control!

ziggy wrote:I'm thinking about it. Somehow OC often helps me to think first, and to show my ignorance later rather than sooner.

Ziggy how can a feller be wrong about so much and yet have such wisdom beyond your years?

God bless ya, Zig!

I have come to the conclusion that much of what we try to fix in an institutional sense (ie elections, campaign finance, economic policy) can come to failure due to a population without any kind of moral compass. I think the first problem of money and party corruption of Congress is not found in how such people are chosen but rather the lack of morality and courage on the part of both the electors and the elected.

I'm still for the repeal of the 17th amendment, if only because state legislators have more time and energy to devote to learning about their Senators than we do:) I really do believe that Senate races have taken on too national of a tone. An overwhelming majority of money spent by Daschle in SD in 2004 (only to lose) illustrates this point. I have to imagine that if state legislatures chose the Senate, the races would cost less as well.