View Poll Results: Should the 17th Amendment be removed?

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    22 56.41%
  • No

    14 35.90%
  • Other

    3 7.69%
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: Should the 17th Amendment be removed?

  1. #31
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:50 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,268
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should the 17th Amendment be removed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Whch is why you shoud base your position on something objective, and then use it to create a sound argument.
    We are talking about something speculative(effect of repealing the 17th amendment). It's all guesswork and opinion, as none of us know what would happen.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #32
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Should the 17th Amendment be removed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    We are talking about something speculative(effect of repealing the 17th amendment). It's all guesswork and opinion, as none of us know what would happen.
    That doesnt change what I said.

  3. #33
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Should the 17th Amendment be removed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    We are talking about something speculative(effect of repealing the 17th amendment). It's all guesswork and opinion, as none of us know what would happen.
    I think we have a very good idea of what will happen. It will probably quickly return to the way it was before less there are other rules/restrictions in place. The 17th amendment came about because States weren't able to seat all their senators. There was conflict between State legislature and executive and a lot of back room wheeling and dealing which caused an overall problem.

    While I like the distinction it makes by having the State seat the senators, in practice the method became corrupt, inefficient, and resulted in long vacancies in a State's senate seat. If we want to return to the State seating senators, then there has to be some system in place to force the State governments to seat Senators in a timely manner. Otherwise, we'll have to live with the People voting and hope that maybe the Senate remembers why they are there.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  4. #34
    Professor
    other's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    VA
    Last Seen
    01-22-14 @ 11:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,473

    Re: Should the 17th Amendment be removed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I think we have a very good idea of what will happen. It will probably quickly return to the way it was before less there are other rules/restrictions in place. The 17th amendment came about because States weren't able to seat all their senators. There was conflict between State legislature and executive and a lot of back room wheeling and dealing which caused an overall problem.

    While I like the distinction it makes by having the State seat the senators, in practice the method became corrupt, inefficient, and resulted in long vacancies in a State's senate seat. If we want to return to the State seating senators, then there has to be some system in place to force the State governments to seat Senators in a timely manner. Otherwise, we'll have to live with the People voting and hope that maybe the Senate remembers why they are there.
    If the citizens of a state elect legislatures that are incapable of seating a senator to suit their own interests, then why should we allow these same citizens to elect more federal officials, who are also incapable... I have no problem with seats in the senate being left vacant, if the state is so corrupt that it cannot make an appointment.

    If the people elect such inept state legislatures, why should they also be able to assert these negative influences over capable states through the direct election of inept federal senators? In my opinion, A vacant seat is better than a seat filled with a corrupt senator.

  5. #35
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 07:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,237

    Re: Should the 17th Amendment be removed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders View Post
    What do you think would improve by moving the power to select Senators back from citizens to state legislatures?
    It would encourage the state to pay more attention to what's going on on Congress. There was a reason why each house setup the way it was. However it's a moot point since the amendment will not be repealed.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  6. #36
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Should the 17th Amendment be removed?

    Quote Originally Posted by other View Post
    If the citizens of a state elect legislatures that are incapable of seating a senator to suit their own interests, then why should we allow these same citizens to elect more federal officials, who are also incapable... I have no problem with seats in the senate being left vacant, if the state is so corrupt that it cannot make an appointment.

    If the people elect such inept state legislatures, why should they also be able to assert these negative influences over capable states through the direct election of inept federal senators? In my opinion, A vacant seat is better than a seat filled with a corrupt senator.
    I mean, you can say that; but who doesn't vote for corrupt politicians, they're kinda one in the same. You have the choice of the Republocrats, so what are the People really going to do? You can say you don't care if they don't seat a senator, but I do. Because otherwise it defeats the purpose of the Senate.

    It's an inherent problem with the system, not just a few politicians. You can have some mechanism that if the State government doesn't seat a senator in X time, then it's open election or some other mechanism is activated which can get a senator seated.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •