Would you support repealing Wilson's seventeenth Amendment?

[Dargil]

It would restore appointment of Senators by state governments, not popular election.

[onedarkcloud]

All that would do is prevent millions of people from expressing their view of who they want to run our government and relegate that task to one asshole who speaks for all right or wrong

[KostasKouvalis]

Hell no! Then they'd be representing the elites and not the people

[AviatorTom]

Why? State senators are chosen by popular vote, federal senators should be the same.

[OddBeMe]

Repeal the idea of a senate altogether. Why should Montana and NY have equal standing... anywhere?

[Dargil]

I think you know why.

[Dargil]

They get proper disproportionate representation from the House. The Senate was designed to preserve the rights of sovereign states. as was the Electoral College.

[OddBeMe]

So the senate is disportionate on purpose? Sounds like communism!

[msc545]

Hell no. No reasons to allow fascists to appoint more fascists.

[Dongie]

Just install term limits, shit.

[Dargil]

I agree that it is easier to accomplish but US Senators won't agree to it and States do not serve their interests if sports or Hollywood figures are elected. But I may be wrong. At least I don't want commies.

[Grond21]

1000% yes

[Caroline91]

@Grond21 Ofc I'm going to ask you why, right? Why? (I have read the history of the amendment.)

[Dargil]

@Caroline91 federalist intent of the founders.

[Grond21]

Absolutely!

It's because it strips power from the states and gives it to the federal government, and upsets the balance of power achieved in our founding documents

[Caroline91]

@Grond21 How does it do that when each state still votes for its own Senators? It just changed the way it's done. I mean, I can see how it could be considered redundant bc the voters of each state have already chosen their state legislators who are supposed to represent them. However, since the Constitution, itself, allows for amendments in Article V, isn't that also part of the intent of the founders? And the 17th Amendment was deemed necessary in order to of fight corruption in state and local governments. HA! take that, Grondy!!

[Grond21]

The Senators were never supposed to represent the people of each state, the were supposed to represent the state itself. Now that has been changed, we have two different ways of representing the people and no one represents the state as a independent government entity. This cuts the states out from their voice in the government and now they are competing with the federal government for the attention and influence of their own people. This was only supposed to take place in the House of Representatives which would be in opposition to the Senators. But now most people don't know or care about their Representatives because they have senators, and they barely care about those, if they do it all. That is why so many people only need to be one over by the president and they just vote down ballot for the rest. It's skewed the governmental power in favor of the executive as it made us more democratic and less of a republic. It gives more voice to mob rule.

The Constitution does allow for amendments, but it doesn't mean some of them aren't stupid. This one is one such.

Corruption is always a threat, and this was a terrible way to deal with it. It only made the problem worse by giving more power to the federal corruption in favor of less in the states. It makes it easier for demagogues to win by bribing the people because the states have less of a voice

[Caroline91]

😛 Uncle, already! 🫢

[Grond21]

😂😂 as you wish

[Caroline91]

Oh aren't WE accommodating today?

[Caroline91]

Can you hear it? Huh... huh... huh? I'm laughing!!

[Grond21]

I can hear it!

[Dargil]

@Caroline91 "How does it do that when each state still votes for its own Senators?"
The intent of the founders was the election/appointment of Senators by the state legislatures and governors. Senators representing the will of the states, rather than citizens.

[Caroline91]

@Dargil I'm just saying that the intent of the founders also included some flexibility in case of things they didn't anticipate or couldn't foresee. That's exactly what constitutional amendments are for. But, they also realized that an amendment to the Constitution should not be an easy thing to do. I'm not actually coming down pro or con on the issue.

[Dargil]

@Caroline91 Like Prohibition? Another bad idea. Like RVW.

[Caroline91]

@Dargil No argument from me on Prohibition. RVW I am conflicted on.

[Dargil]

@Caroline91 The same issue, sort of. This time The Tenth Amendment.

[Caroline91]

@Dargil. What is your point about The Tenth Amendment? Are you saying it's a good or a bad thing?

[Caroline91]

Actually, I think you know I believe in smaller government (Is that small "g" a pun? You'll never know!)