• 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
DeeJayH said:
why? they would just lobby indirectly to the state legislatures and than throw money at the ppl elected by the state legislature.
Click to expand...

You see, I have much more control over my State Rep. I can drive to his office and speak to him 5 days out of the week. Even if he/she falls under the influence of lobbyists, if they do not convey my and the neighbors in my district's views affecting the governance and sovereignty of my state via the Senator they endorse to protect my State, they get booted the next election.

Remember, the original role of the Senate was to protect the sovereignty of the individual States from the tyranny of the federal Government and the people themselves.

You need to see, if you have not already, Other Peoples Money
Click to expand...

Haven't seen it.

the rules may change, but they adapt. They are just playing the game to the best of their abilities.
Click to expand...

The framers of the Constitution were keenly aware of the dangers that political fads would pose to the sovereignty of the individual states. As it is now, both houses of congress easily fall prey to the whims of political fads & outside money and because of that a rash of federal laws - destructive to state-sovereignty have followed.
 
Last edited:
DeeJayH said:
Danny Devito plays a comedic Gordon Gecko
Click to expand...

The chick in that film sort of grows on you. she goes from nerd to hot

great film.
 
Redress said:
That is obvious and true of any one's opinion on these boards.
Click to expand...
Whch is why you shoud base your position on something objective, and then use it to create a sound argument.
 
Goobieman said:
Whch is why you shoud base your position on something objective, and then use it to create a sound argument.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...
That doesnt change what I said.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
What do you think would improve by moving the power to select Senators back from citizens to state legislatures?
Click to expand...
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.
 
other said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom