Skip to main content

View Diary: ALEC's assault on the 17th Amendment (74 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's a bit of a non-sequitur (3+ / 0-)

    I didn't say it was necessarily a good idea, and I acknowledged that corruption was rife in practice.  I'm just saying that the basic idea, as envisioned by the founders, is sound and in-line with what the Senate was intended to be.

    Remember, Senators do not represent people; they represent states.  That's why there are two per instead of being proportional.  That's the whole point of federalism.  The people are represented by the House.

    •  Senators still represent the people who live (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      scott5js, ColoTim

      in their state, they represent the interests of the people who live in their state.  If we want senators who represent the companies and political funders in their state, or perhaps from outside their state, then we should go back to the legislative selection program.

      All US Senators and Representatives also have a duty to put the national interest ahead of narrow state interests, to protect our constitution (they are sworn to do that), and whether there is a conceptual advantage to legislative selection of senators, the reality is that system was a failure, and taking the decision making power from the people who live and work in the states, in favor of hyper partisan-gerrymandered legislatures is a recipe for even more corruption than we have in Washington right now.

      I don't want to go there, and I don't support repealing the 17th amendment, and I will fight against it.

      Republicans are like alligators. All mouth and no ears.

      by Ohiodem1 on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:48:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  False dichotomy (0+ / 0-)

        I reject the notion that the only two options are direct election of Senators and corruptible appointments by state legislatures.

        •  There is only one proposal on the table from (0+ / 0-)

          ALEC.  Go back to the pre-17th amendment process of legislative appointment of Senators, or keep the current system sanctioned by the 17th, and allow the people to directly elect them.

          First you say I'm doing a non-sequitur, then a false dichotomy.  What else is there to discuss here?  My premise is that the old system was changed in the early 1900's Good Government era because the old system had proven to be rife with corruption.  The Goo-Goo's had it right, in my opinion, and I do not support returning to an era of supremely bad government.  If the vehicle to achieve that is to repeal the 17th amendment, then I do not support that proposal.

          And I will say that I do not believe that all appointed senators were corrupt, or that the system that made those appointments was always corrupt.  I think history can demonstrate that the people of the early 20th century recognized that it was corrupt enough to take action.

          Republicans are like alligators. All mouth and no ears.

          by Ohiodem1 on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:27:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not sure we really disagree (0+ / 0-)

            I've never said ALEC's proposal is worthwhile.  My only point has been that direct election of Senators is not the only way to go, and that letting the states decide how to appoint or elect their own representatives in Congress has some conceptual merit.

            Obviously we'd need some sort of restrictions in order to prevent the corruption we saw before the Seventeenth Amendment was enacted.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site