• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the 17th Amendment be removed?

Should the 17th Amendment be removed?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 54.8%
  • No

    Votes: 12 38.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 6.5%

  • Total voters
    31

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,595
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The 17th Amendment allows the elections of senators. Apparently the reason for the 17th was to combat corruption, well as we have seen with some of the career senators that point seems to be moot. I just read this piece that makes a good point on how the way it used to be regarding them (the state legislator appointed them).

Prior to 1913, Members of the Senate were chosen by state legislatures to be the agents of those governments in Washington, D.C., much like ambassadors today at the United Nations. The framers’ legislative design was subtle, but ingenious: While a Member of the House would represent the interests of the people as citizens, a Senator would represent the very different interests of the people’s sovereign state governments. This structure embodied the original meaning of the term “separation of powers.” The legislature would domicile two distinct powers (the people and the states) to compete bill by bill for the direction and scope of the federal government.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_35/guest/39156-1.html

What do you think?
 
The 17th Amendment allows the elections of senators. Apparently the reason for the 17th was to combat corruption, well as we have seen with some of the career senators that point seems to be moot. I just read this piece that makes a good point on how the way it used to be regarding them (the state legislator appointed them).



http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_35/guest/39156-1.html

What do you think?

I think the Senate's role from the original intention has faded long ago.

Just another corrupt body for us to watch over...except they are SO MUCH MORE powerful than house members.

Term Limits, man.
 
The 17th Amendment allows the elections of senators. Apparently the reason for the 17th was to combat corruption, well as we have seen with some of the career senators that point seems to be moot. I just read this piece that makes a good point on how the way it used to be regarding them (the state legislator appointed them).



Senate Vacancies Raise Questions of Framers’ Intentions - Roll Call

What do you think?

What do you think would improve by moving the power to select Senators back from citizens to state legislatures?
 
Exactly what it was supposed to be for -- to give the state government direct representation in the national government and make it less likely that federalism will be violated. It's run roughshod ever since the amendment was ratified.

It's a check against the federal government in favor of the states. It's another division of power, and divided power is good.

This should be done.
 
The 17th Amendment allows the elections of senators. Apparently the reason for the 17th was to combat corruption, well as we have seen with some of the career senators that point seems to be moot. I just read this piece that makes a good point on how the way it used to be regarding them (the state legislator appointed them).



Senate Vacancies Raise Questions of Framers’ Intentions - Roll Call

What do you think?

No, it shouldn't. Not on principle, but on practice. I understand the point of having separated the two houses, and the necessity of having the State represented as well as the People. However, one of the largest motivations to the implementation of the 17th amendment was because in practice the thing became horribly...horribly corrupt. You saw States not always seating all their senators because of internal politics and such. In the end, the direct election of them was to get around the problems of having State legislature with the signing off of the governor appointing Senators. Maybe there could be a better mechanism in place to ensure that the States had to seat the senators chosen by the legislature, but there would have to be something there to make sure that happened. As it stood, it became a pretty bad institution.

I do wish that regardless of how the senator is elected, they would understand that their duty is not to the People, but to the State. That is lost in current politics...but actually a lot is lost in current politics.
 
Politicians stay in line only when they're afraid of losing their jobs; they have no incentive at all to keep the interests of the State in mind.
 
The 17th Amendment allows the elections of senators. Apparently the reason for the 17th was to combat corruption, well as we have seen with some of the career senators that point seems to be moot. I just read this piece that makes a good point on how the way it used to be regarding them (the state legislator appointed them).



Senate Vacancies Raise Questions of Framers’ Intentions - Roll Call

What do you think?

I do not imagine anything would be gained by getting rid of the 17th amendment. The constitution is too valuable to change for minor reasons, and that is what this is.
 
The 17th Amendment allows the elections of senators. Apparently the reason for the 17th was to combat corruption, well as we have seen with some of the career senators that point seems to be moot. I just read this piece that makes a good point on how the way it used to be regarding them (the state legislator appointed them).



Senate Vacancies Raise Questions of Framers’ Intentions - Roll Call

What do you think?

I support the right of the people to pick their elected representatives on all levels of government. If anything the only thing that should happen is lengthy residency requirement laws to run for office to eliminate carpet bagging and to impose term limits, these things would eliminate corruption. After all we impose term limits for president so why should a senator or congressmen or any elected official be able to run for unlimited terms. Nor do we let foreign born citizens to be president( birther morons please save your conspiracies for the conspiracy forum section), so why shouldn't the same standard apply basically to everyone else wanting to run for office or at least a lengthy residency requirement.
 
I support the right of the people to pick their elected representatives on all levels of government. If anything the only thing that should happen is lengthy residency requirement laws to run for office to eliminate carpet bagging and to impose term limits, these things would eliminate corruption. After all we impose term limits for president so why should a senator or congressmen or any elected official be able to run for unlimited terms. Nor do we let foreign born citizens to be president( birther morons please save your conspiracies for the conspiracy forum section), so why shouldn't the same standard apply basically to everyone else wanting to run for office or at least a lengthy residency requirement.
So you favor direct voting by the public to fill Congressional committee seats, chairmanships and so forth?
 
So you favor direct voting by the public to fill Congressional committee seats, chairmanships and so forth?

Yes.The more control the people have the more those in office realize that they work for us and are our employees.
 
I do not imagine anything would be gained by getting rid of the 17th amendment. The constitution is too valuable to change for minor reasons, and that is what this is.
This is only true if you can show that the change is for a "minor reason".
 
This is only true if you can show that the change is for a "minor reason".

Since I don't see this change as accomplishing anything, then I think I can safely say that if I am right, this would be a minor change.
 
Since I don't see this change as accomplishing anything, then I think I can safely say that if I am right, this would be a minor change.
Oh. So your argument is entirely subjective.
10-4.
 
Oh. So your argument is entirely subjective.
10-4.

Considering the thread is asking people's opinion on something, that should be a given.
 
Since I don't see this change as accomplishing anything, then I think I can safely say that if I am right, this would be a minor change.

since you consider it a minor change than it will not be missed by eliminating it and returning o The Actual Constitution as written. since the Constitution should not be messed with over minor things
 
I'm more in favor of abolishing the Senate. Prominent members of the Senate represent a population that is less than a large in other states.
 
Considering the thread is asking people's opinion on something, that should be a given.
That's fine -- but then, your mere opinion is no more compelling than the opposite.
 
That's fine -- but then, your mere opinion is no more compelling than the opposite.

That is obvious and true of any one's opinion on these boards.
 
Think about the subpar quality of many of the appointed senators...
 
Think about the subpar quality of many of the appointed senators...

Think about the subpar quality of most of the elected senators.

I'd rather have senators pandering to a state legislature, than have them running a perpetual re-election campaign.
 
I do not imagine anything would be gained by getting rid of the 17th amendment. The constitution is too valuable to change for minor reasons, and that is what this is.

so passing the 17th amendment was OK but removing it was not? bit of a disconnect in your logic there
 
A repeal of the 17th amendment would take alot of power away from lobbying interests.

why? they would just lobby indirectly to the state legislatures and than throw money at the ppl elected by the state legislature.
You need to see, if you have not already, Other Peoples Money

the rules may change, but they adapt. They are just playing the game to the best of their abilities.
 
Think about how much worse pork could get. A senator might try to put a project in a legislator's district to keep his vote.
 
so passing the 17th amendment was OK but removing it was not? bit of a disconnect in your logic there

The 17th amendment is passed now. It is now part of the constitution, and has been for almost 100 years. I see no overriding gain from further changing of it.

For those who think repealing it would get rid of or reduce corruption, I find the thought unlikely, I think it would just change the nature of it, and pork barrel spending would if anything get much worse I suspect.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom