Read Repeal The Seventeenth Amendment? at Thirty-Thousand.org.
Forum rules
Before posting, be sure to read Repeal The Seventeenth Amendment? Discussion is limited to that topic. All other discussion will be moved or deleted. No incivility or partisan advocacy allowed.
sbozich
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 11:08 am
First Name: Stephen
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified?

Post by sbozich »

JEQuidam wrote:

That being said, it may be prudent for a super-majority vote to be required, or the recall is not effected until the replacement Senator is approved by the state legislature.
I would assume that each state would prudently put in place a stop-gap measure to ensure that recalls are not commonplace; be it by super-majority, or executive concurrence, or whatever means they choose.

At the Federal level, a stick can legislatively be put in place (at the time of repeal) to create an incentive for states to ensure they have full representation in the Senate. I imagine an easy fix would be to simply subtract that states slot from the tally of the whole (e.g. 50 would be a majority, instead of 51), or, possibly allow the President of the Senate to cast a vote in the case of an absent Senator. Ultimately, any state legislature that causes damage to their state due to malfeasance will ultimately have to face the voters. THAT should be the greatest incentive of all!

There are plenty of options, and they can all be rationally gamed out. I don't think that should be a show stopper one way or the other.
Pseudolus
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:34 am
First Name: Jeffrey
Stance: Pro-Enlargement
Location: New York, NY and New Orleans, LA

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified?

Post by Pseudolus »

sbozich wrote:
JEQuidam wrote:That being said, it may be prudent for a super-majority vote to be required, or the recall is not effected until the replacement Senator is approved by the state legislature.
I would assume that each state would prudently put in place a stop-gap measure to ensure that recalls are not commonplace; be it by super-majority, or executive concurrence, or whatever means they choose.

At the Federal level, a stick can legislatively be put in place (at the time of repeal) to create an incentive for states to ensure they have full representation in the Senate. I imagine an easy fix would be to simply subtract that states slot from the tally of the whole (e.g. 50 would be a majority, instead of 51), or, possibly allow the President of the Senate to cast a vote in the case of an absent Senator. Ultimately, any state legislature that causes damage to their state due to malfeasance will ultimately have to face the voters. THAT should be the greatest incentive of all!

There are plenty of options, and they can all be rationally gamed out. I don't think that should be a show stopper one way or the other.
We really don't need to introduce new methods for temporary appointments to the Senate. The Framers already included in the Constitution a measure for temporary appointments. If a seat is vacant, the Executive of the State may make a temporary appointment until the legislature re-appoints. Let's stick with the Framers' solution rather than decreasing Senate votes (when perhaps the State purposely means to abstain) or inserting the VP (when perhaps that could result in the VP having more votes than any state should, let alone any one person).

When in doubt, trust the Framers. Their solution is usually the best.
sbozich
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 11:08 am
First Name: Stephen
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified?

Post by sbozich »

The rub with the 17th Amendment is that it revokes from the states their ability to be represented at the federal level. Today, the federal government taxes the people directly, and then determines what, if any, a state will receive.

This flow of cash must be reversed, and repeal of the 17th amendment, in my opinion, plays an important role in doing so. We should be paying our taxes to our respective states, and then Congress, representing both the people and the states, can fight over who gets what.

Anything else distorts the principal-agent relationship that is supposed to exist between the people and the states, and the states and the federal government.
Pseudolus
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:34 am
First Name: Jeffrey
Stance: Pro-Enlargement
Location: New York, NY and New Orleans, LA

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified?

Post by Pseudolus »

sbozich wrote:The rub with the 17th Amendment is that it revokes from the states their ability to be represented at the federal level. Today, the federal government taxes the people directly, and then determines what, if any, a state will receive.

This flow of cash must be reversed, and repeal of the 17th amendment, in my opinion, plays an important role in doing so. We should be paying our taxes to our respective states, and then Congress, representing both the people and the states, can fight over who gets what.

Anything else distorts the principal-agent relationship that is supposed to exist between the people and the states, and the states and the federal government.
Seconded.
Post Reply