Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Russ Feingold Proposes Constitutional Amendment  
User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1888 times:

Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin has announced that he plans to introduce an amendment to the US Constitution for consideration by Congress:

Quote:
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, issued the following statement today on plans to introduce an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to end appointments to the Senate by state governors and require special elections in the event of a Senate seat vacancy.
“The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end. In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators. They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people. I plan to introduce a constitutional amendment this week to require special elections when a Senate seat is vacant, as the Constitution mandates for the House, and as my own state of Wisconsin already requires by statute. As the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I will hold a hearing on this important topic soon.”

http://thepage.time.com/feingold-statement-on-amendment-proposal/

Any thoughts? I happen to think this is a smart move; citizens should have the right to elect their representatives, and this helps to extend that right.


Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1879 times:



Quoting Yellowstone (Thread starter):
Any thoughts?

Yes, it's called trampling States rights and since in order for the amendment to pass he needs 3/4's of the States to go along with it, it wil die right where it started, in the Senate.


User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1862 times:

It's not uncommon for a member of any kind of parliament to be replaced by an appointee in case of resignation or removal from the position during the term. I don't think the US Senate should dictate policy on that through a constitutional amendment. Instead, what the states themselves can do, is have people who can jump in as such replacements elected through the senator.

What I mean by that is: Either the party or the senator/senator-nominee can designate replacements prior to the election, to have the succession during the term (e.g. if the senator resigns or is dismissed from the senate) pre-defined in advance. Therefore, if a senator leaves, then the first replacement will automatically take over for that senator, without having the governor designate them post-resignation and without the need to call for new elections. The replacement can however choose if he does want to take the seat or not, which is why a minimum of two possible replacement senators would have to be designated, plus that new senator would only stay in the senate throughout the rest of the original senator's term and can only stay longer if elected during the regular election cycle of the state.

This way, you avoid controversies through a governor appointing the replacement and also the need for early elections. However, as said before, this has to be determined by the states themselves, and if they don't want to implement something like my suggestion, so be it, it's their choice and their choice alone.


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5689 posts, RR: 44
Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1855 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting DXing (Reply 1):
Yes, it's called trampling States rights

Why is it trampling states rights.
If the voters elect the senator in the first place it seems only fair that those same voters elect a mid term replacement. It confuses me why a Gubernatorial appointment is more a demonstration of states rights than letting the voters of the state choose.

Quoting DXing (Reply 1):
it wil die right where it started, in the Senate.

Perhaps, but 3/4 of the states agreed to the 17th amendment so they might go along with this.. or not!.

Cheers



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8124 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1851 times:



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 3):
Why is it trampling states rights.
If the voters elect the senator in the first place it seems only fair that those same voters elect a mid term replacement. It confuses me why a Gubernatorial appointment is more a demonstration of states rights than letting the voters of the state choose.

Because it's deciding how all 50 states feel about the issue from the floor of the US senate without asking the people how they want their representation handled. It's a fundamental violation of how the US Constitution works. It's a cockamamie idea and like DX said, it will quickly die. If there's enough public or PAC traction to get rid of the current system in the wake of the Blago scandal, then there will be a citizen referendum on the issue. If not, things will continue as they are.

Feingold is still a bit too in love with being a lawyer and seems to like spending a lot of his time on things like this. Get back to work Russ - the economy's not so hot in your state.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1845 times:



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 3):
Why is it trampling states rights.

Because some people look at any case in which the federal government tells states what to do as a violation of states' rights. Presumably DX feels that states should be free to determine their own means of selecting replacement senators. However, in a case such as this where the new rule would protect the democratic process, I think the American public is best served by the federal government stepping in.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1840 times:



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 4):
Because it's deciding how all 50 states feel about the issue from the floor of the US senate without asking the people how they want their representation handled. It's a fundamental violation of how the US Constitution works.

No, it isn't. Feingold is following the amendment process as described in the Constitution, as has occurred with every proposed amendment. Any such amendment would have to pass both houses of Congress by a 2/3 majority, and then be approved by 3/4 of the states. The US Senate alone can't make this change; if it occurs, it will be with the approval of legislative bodies throughout the US, as the Framers intended. If the people do not want such an amendment to pass, they will have plenty of venues in which to make their voices heard.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 4):
If there's enough public or PAC traction to get rid of the current system in the wake of the Blago scandal, then there will be a citizen referendum on the issue.

No amendment to the US Constitution has ever been proposed or ratified via a citizen referendum, so I don't see why you think that would work here.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1840 times:



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 3):
If the voters elect the senator in the first place it seems only fair that those same voters elect a mid term replacement.

Or that the voters of that particular State decide whether to allow the Governor to name a Senator or have a special election. Part of the argument against a special election in Illinois was that a special election would take months and leave the State with only one Senator representing them. Senator Feingolds solution is to force the State to be shy a Senator or Congressperson.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 4):
Because it's deciding how all 50 states feel about the issue from the floor of the US senate without asking the people how they want their representation handled.

 checkmark 

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 5):
However, in a case such as this where the new rule would protect the democratic process, I think the American public is best served by the federal government stepping in.

I guess you'll have to explain how it is "protecting" the democratic process. If President Obama had been interested in "protecting" the democratic process he would have resigned his seat after winning the democratic primary so two candidates could have run for his seat in the regular election. I have a problem with elected represenatives running for another office and not giving up their own. That is part of what has led to the problem Illinois. If you want to run for another office have the guts to put it all on the line.


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8507 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1831 times:

I think the 17th Amendment and Russ Feingold should both be repealed.

User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1821 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 7):
I guess you'll have to explain how it is "protecting" the democratic process.

Comparing a process in which a Senator is chosen by one man/woman, with one in which the Senator is chosen by the voters, I think the latter is inherently more democratic, in the same sense that the 17th Amendment made the selection of Senators more democratic.

Quoting DXing (Reply 7):
Senator Feingolds solution is to force the State to be shy a Senator or Congressperson.

Not necessarily. First, one should remember that House vacancies are already required to be filled by special election, according to the Constitution. Those special election cycles tend to take a few months, and I think it would be reasonable to set a time limit in the 3-4 month range for Senate special elections. That's not a terribly long time to be without a Senator; again, it happens in the House regularly. The amendment could also include a proviso that a temporary Senator could be appointed to serve until the special election.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8124 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1795 times:



Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 6):
Feingold is following the amendment process as described in the Constitution, as has occurred with every proposed amendment. Any such amendment would have to pass both houses of Congress by a 2/3 majority, and then be approved by 3/4 of the states. The US Senate alone can't make this change; if it occurs, it will be with the approval of legislative bodies throughout the US, as the Framers intended. If the people do not want such an amendment to pass, they will have plenty of venues in which to make their voices heard.

I think most people here are well aware of the Amendment candidate process and fully expect a US Senator to abide by those requirements. Clearly Feingold is doing so - but whether or not he is wasn't the argument. The argument is whether or not states' rights issues will come into play on this issue and given the massive differences in individual states' needs regarding their federal representation, a one-size fits all solution to vacancies seems premature at the very least. I'm merely stating that it would be very difficult to make this kind of change without at a least a few states having a problem with it.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 6):
No amendment to the US Constitution has ever been proposed or ratified via a citizen referendum

Tell that to the suffragettes - one might be inclined to call all of those meetings in Syracuse everything but a citizen referendum. Except for the little fact that, ya know, they couldn't actually vote.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 9):
Those special election cycles tend to take a few months, and I think it would be reasonable to set a time limit in the 3-4 month range for Senate special elections. That's not a terribly long time to be without a Senator; again, it happens in the House regularly.

Those changes are substantially different than the Feingold proposal.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13073 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1782 times:

This is something worth considering. The Amendment procedures are quite particular and require a very high standard.
The appointment process as used in a number of states places far too much power in a Governor along with too much opportunity for corruption as we have seen in Illinois or internal party politics as we saw in New York State and probably has often occurred in the past. Appointments as a practical matter only go to someone of the same political party of the Governor. One who is appointed usually becomes the candidate in the next election so can be very critical to chances of a party keeping the seat. Appointments limit real choice by the voters and in some cases (like with Sen. Ted Kennedy) means some who would like to or should resign due to health during their terms, won't as concerned a person not of their party will be appointed. An appointment can also affect the balance of party power, especially in the Senate.
Appointments do have the advantage of keeping someone in the seat to make sure better access to money and power for a state in the Senate as well as making sure of representation of the citizens at maximum levels. Yes, there is the costs of special elections, but they could be tied into regular or primary elections.
I would also like to see an amendment or as part of this Amendment banning any Presidential Primaries or caucuses by the states before March 1st of the year of a Presidential election


User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1748 times:



Quoting MD-90 (Reply 8):
I think the 17th Amendment and Russ Feingold should both be repealed

Agreed on both. Feingold is fairly useless, and repealing the 17th Amendment would make state and local elections much more significant.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11576 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1736 times:

How would this be trampling states rights? Letting the people of the state decide who to represent them instead of one person deciding who to represent the state seems like a good idea to me. If, God forbid, something happened to Jeff Merkley or Ron Wyden so that they were not able to complete their term, I would want to decide who fills the seat. As much as I like our governer, why should he alone pick the next Senator?

Edit: Why is it that sometimes the spouse takes over the seat? When and where did that start?

[Edited 2009-01-27 09:10:35]


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1730 times:



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 12):
Agreed on both. Feingold is fairly useless, and repealing the 17th Amendment would make state and local elections much more significant.

I agree that it would make state and local elections more significant, but I don't see how that trumps the basic principle that people should be able to choose their legislative representatives.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 10):
Tell that to the suffragettes - one might be inclined to call all of those meetings in Syracuse everything but a citizen referendum. Except for the little fact that, ya know, they couldn't actually vote.

So by "citizen referendum," you meant that any successful amendment would have to grow out of a groundswell of public support rather than one senator introducing it? If that's what you meant, you might be right. I was interpreting "referendum" in the more formal sense of citizens voting on a proposed law--that's what I meant by saying that amendments don't come from citizen referenda, since citizens don't directly vote on them.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 10):
I'm merely stating that it would be very difficult to make this kind of change without at a least a few states having a problem with it.

I think the reason why Feingold sees this as a amendment-worthy issue is that, more specifically, a few states' governors would have a problem with it. I can hardly see a power-hungry governor willingly giving up the power to appoint a replacement Senator, even if that policy is not in the best interest of the state.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 10):
Those changes are substantially different than the Feingold proposal.

I don't see how you can make that claim, when the proposed amendment hasn't even been written yet. He has said he wants special elections to replace Senate vacancies, but he hasn't elaborated on the specifics of that process.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1712 times:



Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 14):
I agree that it would make state and local elections more significant, but I don't see how that trumps the basic principle that people should be able to choose their legislative representatives

It doesn't. They still directly elect the Representatives, and the Senators would be chosen by the through those the people chose in state and local elections. Just as originally intended. In either method, how are the people not choosing their legislative representations?



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineSmcmac32msn From United States of America, joined May 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1702 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 7):
Part of the argument against a special election in Illinois was that a special election would take months and leave the State with only one Senator representing them

You do realize Barack Obama left the Senate on November 16th, 2008, right? You remember when Bluuuu-goy-o-bitch picked Burris?? December 30th. He was sworn in January 15th... a full 2 months after Obama left the seat. Illinois had 1 senator representing them for 2 months so either way, they will be down to 1 for several months. Whats your argument now?  stirthepot 



Hey Obama, keep the change! I want my dollar back.
User currently offlineLonghornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3285 posts, RR: 44
Reply 17, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1699 times:

Quite honestly, of all the constitutional amendment proposals I've seen, this one actually makes some of the most sense. There is no legitimate reason why the people should not be able to elect their U.S. senator. If they can do it under normal circumstances, why not under "special" circumstances?

The fact is, if this amendment, were it to pass (which I doubt it will), the states would've overwhelmingly decided this was a good idea, and any questions about the states' rights would've been quelled, at least by the appearances of the vote. Why should one man have the power to appoint a new senator, when under normal circumstances, the power is left at the hands of the voter?

In the interim, the governor could appoint a replacement until the election has been completed. That seems like a decent way of compromising the governor's power.

In my opinion, this is would be a far more democratic process than the current one. Part of the "states' rights" argument is to return the power to the people. This instance brings up an interesting paradox: what amounts to a federal mandate (read: not "power to the people") that provides more power to the people.  scratchchin 

 twocents 

Cheers,
Cameron


User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1671 times:



Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 9):
not a terribly long time to be without a Senator; again, it happens in the House regularly.

In the house a Respresenative is but one of 435. In the Senate one of 100. Big difference.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 9):
The amendment could also include a proviso that a temporary Senator could be appointed to serve until the special election.

Talk about setting up a scheme ripe for abuse.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 13):
How would this be trampling states rights?

Because the amendment would be a Federal one thus eliminating a States right to choose which way to operate their system.

Quoting Smcmac32msn (Reply 16):
You do realize Barack Obama left the Senate on November 16th, 2008

You do realize that a House Represenative generally covers a much smaller area than does a seat in the Senate? To run a special election for a Senator requires all the polling places in the State to be open, and candidates must run state wide. That's a far cry from a just the few precints a House Rep may cover. Additionally it wouldn't have taken 2 full months for President Obama's replacement to be named and seated if it had not been for a crooked Governor and an idiotic Senate Majority leader.


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6793 posts, RR: 34
Reply 19, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1669 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 1):
Yes, it's called trampling States rights and since in order for the amendment to pass he needs 3/4's of the States to go along with it, it wil die right where it started, in the Senate.

BINGO!!!

Lock this thread now---the irrefutable point was made in the very first response!

It is a usurpation of states authority. And Feingold, like many corrupt power-bloated bureaucrats, just want to continue to run roughshod over states and into areas that they should not go.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22876 posts, RR: 20
Reply 20, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1652 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 18):
In the house a Respresenative is but one of 435. In the Senate one of 100. Big difference.

How does one quantify that difference? A single Senator comprises 4 times as much of the body as a single representative, but what does that mean?

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 9):
The amendment could also include a proviso that a temporary Senator could be appointed to serve until the special election.

I think what a lot of states (including New York IIRC) do is a reasonable compromise: they permit appointment until the next regularly scheduled federal election, at which point an election for the seat is held. The term is whatever length necessary to return the election to its 'regular' schedule (2 years in New York's case since Clinton's term ends in 2012). That way, you have a caretaker Senator but don't have to worry about a special election.

Special elections present their own problems, including cost and low turnout.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1631 times:



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 15):
It doesn't. They still directly elect the Representatives, and the Senators would be chosen by the through those the people chose in state and local elections. Just as originally intended. In either method, how are the people not choosing their legislative representations?

I'm not saying that having state legislatures pick senators is anti-democratic; as you point out, an elected body is doing the selecting. However, it is more democratic to have senators chosen directly by the people. The old system of choosing senators, like the Electoral College, was an expression of the Founders' fear of the "unwashed masses" having too much say over who their leaders were, a fear that as a society we should be past by now.

Quoting DXing (Reply 18):
Talk about setting up a scheme ripe for abuse.

How is it any more ripe for abuse than the current system? Both involve gubernatorial appointments, but in the new system those appointments would only last for a few months, rather than for up to 2 years.

Quoting Slider (Reply 19):
BINGO!!!

Lock this thread now---the irrefutable point was made in the very first response!

It is a usurpation of states authority. And Feingold, like many corrupt power-bloated bureaucrats, just want to continue to run roughshod over states and into areas that they should not go.

So the 14th Amendment was wrong too, then? Obviously, that's an extreme case, but the federal government has a well-justified history of forcing states to expand the democratic process. And your argument that states' authority is being usurped doesn't follow. Moving appointment power from the governor of a state to the people of a state would select a Senator more responsive to the desires of the state, not less. The people are the state, not the government.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 20):
I think what a lot of states (including New York IIRC) do is a reasonable compromise: they permit appointment until the next regularly scheduled federal election, at which point an election for the seat is held. The term is whatever length necessary to return the election to its 'regular' schedule (2 years in New York's case since Clinton's term ends in 2012). That way, you have a caretaker Senator but don't have to worry about a special election.

That's actually the case in all states that allow gubernatorial appointment - the appointment only lasts until the next federal general election.

Potentially useful information on ways of appointing new senators:
Fast special election, no interim appointment: 4 states (MA, OK, OR, WI)
Fast special election, interim gubernatorial appointment: 8 states (AK, AL, AR, LA, MI, TX, VT, WA)
No special election, gubernatorial appointment from same party as departing senator: 4 states (AZ, HI, UT, WY)
No special election, unrestricted gubernatorial appointment: 34 states (everyone else!)

From a political point of view, it's worth noting that we currently have 14 Democratic senators from states where their replacements would be chosen by Republican governors, and 14 Republican senators whose replacements would be chosen by Democrats. So in terms of removing partisanship as an issue, this is an opportune time to consider the amendment.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineJpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4383 posts, RR: 29
Reply 22, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1628 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 18):
Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 9):
The amendment could also include a proviso that a temporary Senator could be appointed to serve until the special election.

Talk about setting up a scheme ripe for abuse.

More than the current one?  Yeah sure



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1621 times:



Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 21):
fear of the "unwashed masses" having too much say over who their leaders were, a fear that as a society we should be past by now

Given some of the recent selections of the masses, maybe they were right.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22876 posts, RR: 20
Reply 24, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1615 times:



Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 21):
I'm not saying that having state legislatures pick senators is anti-democratic; as you point out, an elected body is doing the selecting. However, it is more democratic to have senators chosen directly by the people.

That argument ignores, I think, the fact that special elections frequently have terrible turnout. Is selection by the governor followed by a special election in which 40% of the electorate participates more democratic than a special election in which 10% of the electorate participates? I'm not so sure there's a good answer to that.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
25 Slider : Then it is the people of that state to work to change it, NOT the role of the Federal government to impose it. I'm not saying whether it's a good ide
26 Cubsrule : ...and that's why the federal government doesn't amend the constitution by itself, right?
27 Yellowstone : A fair point, but I think it is the access to the democratic process that matters. If in a special election 80% of the electorate "votes" that they d
28 Blackbird : Honestly, I'd have to know the full contents of the Amendment to make a full opinion. At least partially this seems to be reasonable bill especially a
29 DfwRevolution : It's not all that hard: Different states have different procedures for appointing a new Senator if a replacement is needed. Using a Constitutional am
30 Cubsrule : I don't like to repeat myself, but I'll ask again: if states ratify the amendment (which they must), how is this an involuntary taking of their power
31 RFields5421 : LOL - this proposal is a fundamental affirmation of the US Constitution - exactly as described in the Constitution. It is EXACTLY how the Constitutio
32 LH423 : True, however the lack of a democratic will of a people to vote when given the opportunity doesn't take away from the democratic values of a free vot
33 DXing : A Senator, unlike a Represenative has the power to ratify treaties, advise and consent on Supreme Court Justices, among other things. But your basic
34 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : It is the individual states that have the rights to decide the method of filling vacancies in the Senate, or House of Representitives. Some states ha
35 DfwRevolution : If you want to open that can of worms, replacing the occasional senator mid-term is going to be the least of your worries. You do realize that even t
36 RFields5421 : Kind of. The details are done at the state level, but the framework is set by the constitution, and the detail are set by federal law. When the US Co
37 Yellowstone : With the 14th Amendment, the federal government forced state governments to expand the democratic process. This amendment does the same. Admittedly,
38 Cubsrule : A couple of points: 1) (Yet again), how is a constitutional amendment a forcing of state action? The states have to ratify the thing! 2) How does eit
39 Seb146 : So, giving citizens of each state the right and privilige to a democratic process is bad? I think it is much better than the current system. I want a
40 DocLightning : In general, I am opposed to Constitutional amendments unless those amendments either clarify AND expand the civil rights of the citizens or limit gove
41 Allstarflyer : It's more like trampling the influence of the states. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the 17th amendment - I do like the idea of being able to vote
42 Post contains links DXing : Are you quite sure you mean this 14th amendment? http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html Section 1. All persons born o
43 DL021 : I dislike the idea of amendments being opened up in general as it allows for other mischief from people with agendas that want to slip something in th
44 Usair320 : Although it may look good, It is a clear violation of state's rights. I think if the Illinois Legislature were smart they would adopt an amendment to
45 Blackbird : USAir320 I think that would be the best solution (illinois legislature to adopt amendment to allow for special elections by the people) Blackbird
46 Slider : Well said...it's an Illinois matter....
47 Seb146 : So, one person (the governer) chooses one person to be appointed to the Senate rather than every registered voter choosing? We do NOT have the right
48 DXing : As it stands now. That does not mean that the citizens of any State that does it that way cannot go about changing the way a replacement is picked. W
49 Cubsrule : Not in Illinois. Unless there is a change of governor, there's no way it would take longer than about 65 days. It doesn't take a constitutional amend
50 PPVRA : Because you are not allowing the people of each state to decide on how they will choose their representatives. There's nothing wrong with a direct or
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Iran Proposes Attack On Isreal posted Wed Oct 22 2008 22:22:40 by PilotNTrng
Obama Proposes $1,000 Emergency Rebate Checks posted Fri Aug 1 2008 13:05:20 by Starbuk7
God Bless The ACLU And The 2nd Amendment! posted Thu Feb 7 2008 22:21:52 by Ilikeyyc
Mississippi Proposes Ban On Feeding Obese People posted Wed Feb 6 2008 10:53:20 by N1120A
2nd Amendment Comedy! posted Thu Oct 18 2007 16:35:46 by BHMBAGLOCK
Bush Proposes 'Korea Model' For Iraq posted Mon Jun 4 2007 15:27:14 by Cba
Second Amendment: Should It Be Abolished? posted Tue Apr 17 2007 21:22:43 by RootsAir
Dancing Ban Ruled Constitutional posted Fri Feb 23 2007 23:12:13 by MDorBust
Murtha Proposes Cut And Starve posted Fri Feb 16 2007 06:11:43 by RJdxer
First Amendment Rights Now Under Fire? posted Thu Jan 11 2007 17:28:15 by AerospaceFan