To Deliver Real Senate Rule Changes, Repeal The 17th Amendment

[corbe]

To Deliver Real Senate Rule Changes, Repeal The 17th Amendment

We don’t need another radio show or beautiful think tank with marble bathrooms. We need to start winning. The reason we’re not is the game is rigged against us.

By Ned Ryun
May 12, 2017
 
Last week President Trump tweeted that Senate rules for budget bills should be changed. There’s little chance that will happen. But why settle for little changes when we need big-league change? We need to stop playing the game as it has always been played. If we’re to get this country back on track, we need to change the rules of the game.

Much of the frustration with Washington DC has been building for decades, and for good reason. People feel cut out and abandoned by their government. Government plays an even larger role in their lives and takes even more money out of their pockets, but they aren’t seeing many benefits. They feel they’ve been cut out by their party and its elites, whom they fund.

We’re staring $20,000,000,000,000 in debt, and it’s not slowing down. It’s exploding. Government is not shrinking. It’s expanding and will keep expanding as more baby boomers retire and start receiving Social Security checks. More and more of life’s decisions are being taken out of the hands of individuals and given to bureaucrats. Those who believe government’s size and scope should be limited are losing. And this is all happening in the supposed heyday of the modern conservative movement and the ascendancy of the Republican Party.

We’re Not Winning Because the Game Is Rigged

Let me remind people: Republicans control the White House, the House, the Senate, 33 governors’ mansions, and 70 of the 99 state legislative chambers. There have been billions invested in the conservative movement over the last few decades. People try to tell me the conservative movement is winning because conservatives dominate talk radio and cable, or because it has never been better-funded. My response: we just look and sound better while getting our tails handed to us. It’s like a basketball team with really nice jerseys and the biggest crowds getting beaten 100 to 43. The spectacle looks nice but the scoreboard is truly embarrassing.

Folks, we don’t need to look better or sound better. We don’t need another radio show or another beautiful think tank building with marble bathrooms. We need to start winning. The reason we’re not is because the game is rigged against us.

That’s right: we’re playing a game where house rules make winning almost impossible. We keep playing it, even though the odds are against us winning, and every time we lose, we shake our fists at the skies and go, “Oh, rats. Foiled again. That’s okay, we’ll win next time.” That’s basically the thought of virtually everyone walking out of a casino, so you’ll be in good company.

Here’s a thought: let’s flip the table and change the rules. Rig them in favor of limited, responsible government. Because seriously, if we don’t bring fundamental change to our government, and just keep exfoliating that elephant of debt, guess what? That elephant, sans a few ounces, is going to land right on our collective heads.

Why Repealing the Seventeenth Will Help

<..snip..>

http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/12/deliver-real-senate-rule-changes-repeal-17th-amendment/

[Doug Loss]

How does he imagine this would be accomplished?  Congress will never propose such an amendment to the states for ratification.  The only way this could possibly happen is via an Article V convention.

[berdie]

I'm pretty divided on the 17th. I don't see the advantage of the State Senate appointing a Senator. If someone can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.

What could happen is the state senate could be rigged and appoint a pre-chosen person. Could they not?

[Smokin Joe]

I'm pretty divided on the 17th. I don't see the advantage of the State Senate appointing a Senator. If someone can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.

As it stands, the State Government has no say in what happens at the Federal Level, except for the State Parties to nominate candidates for the office (not part of the State Government).
The States were intended to have an equal say originally, and that would balance or enhance the will of the People, reflected by the Representatives in the House, which was elected based on population and popular vote. The Federal (POTUS), State (Senate), and the People (House of Representatives) were all involved in decisions made and laws enacted at the Federal Level. Without the States represented in the Senate, which is now elected by popular vote of the People, the three competing levels for power are not represented, and the system has devolved into more of a democracy. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what the dinner menu will be.

What could happen is the state senate could be rigged and appoint a pre-chosen person. Could they not?

It could be, it can be, and to some extent the choices the people pick from are, because the political parties in the State (and National through backing and support) choose who the people pick now. They'd have influence in the State Legislature as well. Still, those in the State Legislature will be aware of the issues and needs of the States, and will compete for those on that level rather than worry about pandering to voters at large for votes, something which might put a damper on the eagerness to give away the People's money to buy votes at that level, because it won't help them get reelected by the Legislature.

It is a three-way system of checks and balances in the Federal lawmaking and appropriations system that is broken by the 17th Amendment--one of the legs has been removed from the stool.

[bolobaby]

Sadly, the Schumers and Feinsteins would still be around.

[Cripplecreek]

I think the best we could realistically hope for would be doing away with the popular vote for senators and going to a proportional system where the person who wins the most districts wins. There's just no way we'll ever convince people to give up their "right" to vote for senators now.

This direct popular vote for senators crap (another fine plank in Teddy Roosevelt's progressive party platform) is why states controlled by republicans from the governor on down can have 2 democrat senators.

Detroit, Flint, Ann Arbor and Kzoo control statewide votes.

[driftdiver]

I'm pretty divided on the 17th. I don't see the advantage of the State Senate appointing a Senator. If someone can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.

What could happen is the state senate could be rigged and appoint a pre-chosen person. Could they not?

Essentially that's what happens now.  The party decides who their candidate will be.  Not based on votes but on backroom deals.

[berdie]

As it stands, the State Government has no say in what happens at the Federal Level, except for the State Parties to nominate candidates for the office (not part of the State Government).
The States were intended to have an equal say originally, and that would balance or enhance the will of the People, reflected by the Representatives in the House, which was elected based on population and popular vote. The Federal (POTUS), State (Senate), and the People (House of Representatives) were all involved in decisions made and laws enacted at the Federal Level. Without the States represented in the Senate, which is now elected by popular vote of the People, the three competing levels for power are not represented, and the system has devolved into more of a democracy. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what the dinner menu will be.
It could be, it can be, and to some extent the choices the people pick from are, because the political parties in the State (and National through backing and support) choose who the people pick now. They'd have influence in the State Legislature as well. Still, those in the State Legislature will be aware of the issues and needs of the States, and will compete for those on that level rather than worry about pandering to voters at large for votes, something which might put a damper on the eagerness to give away the People's money to buy votes at that level, because it won't help them get reelected by the Legislature.

Thank you for your response. Like I said, I am very divided on the issue.

I understand the reasoning and the intent. The Founding Fathers didn't get it wrong at all. I fear State's rights have been so severely watered down, perhaps unforseen by them.

I can tell you that Cruz would not be senator from Texas if the Lege had had it's way. Their chosen candidate was a lib with an R after his name. I see some other Senators from other states elected against the odds. I guess that's what gives me pause.

Disclaimer: Whether Cruz is good, bad or indifferent is another subject. I'm just saying that who the Tx Lege had picked was an Establishment guy.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I'm pretty divided on the 17th. I don't see the advantage of the State Senate appointing a Senator. If someone can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.

What could happen is the state senate could be rigged and appoint a pre-chosen person. Could they not?

How about this one:  If the State selected its Senators, we would have no John McCain from Arizona nor a Lindsey Graham from South Carolina.

That in itself would be a huge boost to this country.

Also, I wonder if the NY legislature would have chosen a carpetbagger like Hillary.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I can tell you that Cruz would not be senator from Texas if the Lege had had it's way. Their chosen candidate was a lib with an R after his name. I see some other Senators from other states elected against the odds. I guess that's what gives me pause.

Dewhurst was a middle of the road guy who would have not advanced the conservative cause; however,  are you sure he would have been the chosen one?  Perry backed him but he needed the backing of the State, not just the gov.

[berdie]

How about this one:  If the State selected its Senators, we would have no John McCain from Arizona nor a Lindsey Graham from South Carolina.

That in itself would be a huge boost to this country.

Also, I wonder if the NY legislature would have chosen a carpetbagger like Hillary.

Since I don't know the complexion of the Senates in Arizona, South Carolina or New York (well, that one I kinda know  ) I will defer to you on that question.

[berdie]

Dewhurst was a middle of the road guy who would have not advanced the conservative cause; however,  are you sure he would have been the chosen one?  Perry backed him but he needed the backing of the State, not just the gov.

Well, since Dewhurst was the only one running against Cruz in the primary, I am forced to assume that he was the chosen one.

Dewhurst would have gotten the backing of the voters of the state for no other reason than Sadler(D) was very weak. Of course that is just my opinion. And today Texas is still a red state.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Well, since Dewhurst was the only one running against Cruz in the primary, I am forced to assume that he was the chosen one.

That is an incorrect statement.

There were 9 candidates running in the US Senate GOP primary election, including Cruz and Dewhurst, that appeared on the May 29, 2012 ballot.  The list included Craig James, a popular sports figure.

Glenn Addison
Joe Agris
Curt Cleaver
Ted Cruz
David Dewhurst
Ben Gambini
Craig James
Tom Leppert
Lela Pittenger

https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_elections_in_Texas,_2012

[Cripplecreek]

That is an incorrect statement.

There were 9 candidates running in the US Senate GOP primary election, including Cruz and Dewhurst, that appeared on the May 29, 2012 ballot.  The list included Craig James, a popular sports figure.

Glenn Addison
Joe Agris
Curt Cleaver
Ted Cruz
David Dewhurst
Ben Gambini
Craig James
Tom Leppert
Lela Pittenger

https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_elections_in_Texas,_2012

Ted Cruz's book gives an interesting insight into the machinations that went on and go on in the background in that race and others.

I think for that race Ted Cruz went to Martha's Vineyard and spent the day with George and Barbara Bush who ended up writing him a 6 figure check but didn't endorse him. When he returned to Texas he got a phone call from an enraged Karl Rove. He was angry that Cruz "went behind his back" and took money from Bush. He was mad that the donation would be seen as an endorsement when Rove wanted Bush to endorse Dewhurst. (In reality Rove was angry that he didn't get his cut of the money before screwing Cruz over)

[berdie]

That is an incorrect statement.

There were 9 candidates running in the US Senate GOP primary election, including Cruz and Dewhurst, that appeared on the May 29, 2012 ballot.  The list included Craig James, a popular sports figure.

Glenn Addison
Joe Agris
Curt Cleaver
Ted Cruz
David Dewhurst
Ben Gambini
Craig James
Tom Leppert
Lela Pittenger

https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_elections_in_Texas,_2012

You are right. I stand corrected. Very often my mind will skip ahead. In this case to the runoff.

The statement I made was in relation to the repeal of the 17th and my somewhat divided feelings about that. I used the Cruz/Dewhurst race merely as an example. Had it been up to the State Lege, I am still of the opinion that the candidate would not have been Cruz, nor any of the others running. Dewhurst had their backing. There are other examples that could have been used from other states, I'm just more familiar with Tx.  ^-^

[Smokin Joe]

You are right. I stand corrected. Very often my mind will skip ahead. In this case to the runoff.

The statement I made was in relation to the repeal of the 17th and my somewhat divided feelings about that. I used the Cruz/Dewhurst race merely as an example. Had it been up to the State Lege, I am still of the opinion that the candidate would not have been Cruz, nor any of the others running. Dewhurst had their backing. There are other examples that could have been used from other states, I'm just more familiar with Tx.  ^-^

You do bring up a valid point in that the same GOP entities will push the candidates over at the Statehouse, possibly under threat of withholding support for incumbents at the State level. That said, I think the State Reps would be beholden to the People, too, and have to come up with someone decent for the State if they are going to keep their jobs.

The whole idea was to have three different levels represented in the Federal Government.
The People, in the House of Representatives, representing a bloc of population, and having control over revenue measures (taxes) and the Budget. The Senate, representing the interests of the several States, on an even footing, not completely the same as the direct interests of the People, but beneficial to them if done correctly, and the Executive who Represented the Federal Government and had the power to approve or veto, with the Congress retaining the power to override that veto if there were enough in agreement.
That's a balanced set of interests, with power and representation distributed.

When the Senate is elected at large, the Senators are just pandering to the public without long term considerations one would expect from seasoned legislators at the Statehouse, and in effect become another House of Representatives with  authority allocated a little differently.

[txradioguy]

How does he imagine this would be accomplished?  Congress will never propose such an amendment to the states for ratification.  The only way this could possibly happen is via an Article V convention.

That's one of the Amendments that's been proposed for an Article V Convention of States...repeal of the 17th Amendment.

Wilson forever screwed the states when he got this Amendment passed and the voice of the individual states was put on mute.

[Cripplecreek]

You do bring up a valid point in that the same GOP entities will push the candidates over at the Statehouse, possibly under threat of withholding support for incumbents at the State level. That said, I think the State Reps would be beholden to the People, too, and have to come up with someone decent for the State if they are going to keep their jobs.

The whole idea was to have three different levels represented in the Federal Government.
The People, in the House of Representatives, representing a bloc of population, and having control over revenue measures (taxes) and the Budget. The Senate, representing the interests of the several States, on an even footing, not completely the same as the direct interests of the People, but beneficial to them if done correctly, and the Executive who Represented the Federal Government and had the power to approve or veto, with the Congress retaining the power to override that veto if there were enough in agreement.
That's a balanced set of interests, with power and representation distributed.

When the Senate is elected at large, the Senators are just pandering to the public without long term considerations one would expect from seasoned legislators at the Statehouse, and in effect become another House of Representatives with  authority allocated a little differently.

To me the 17th amendment is a great argument against a constitutional convention.

The states didn't want to give up their right to representation in DC but the 17th was sold to the people under the guise that those filthy state parties are screwing the people out of their right to representation. The reality is that the senators were never supposed to be direct representatives of the people, that's what the house of representatives is for.

Now we have a senate full of senators who largely ignore the will of the states they once represented and they go along with the party come hell or high water.

One example was the senate opposition to directional drilling under the great lakes for natural gas. There was overwhelming support for it and even the EPA signed off on it as a safe plan. Our own senators (Levin and Stabenow) said no and voted with their party rather than the state. (Personally I don't think the whole senate should have gotten a vote anyway. It should have been great lake states alone)

[Smokin Joe]

To me the 17th amendment is a great argument against a constitutional convention.

The states didn't want to give up their right to representation in DC but the 17th was sold to the people under the guise that those filthy state parties are screwing the people out of their right to representation. The reality is that the senators were never supposed to be direct representatives of the people, that's what the house of representatives is for.

Now we have a senate full of senators who largely ignore the will of the states they once represented and they go along with the party come hell or high water.

One example was the senate opposition to directional drilling under the great lakes for natural gas. There was overwhelming support for it and even the EPA signed off on it as a safe plan. Our own senators (Levin and Stabenow) said no and voted with their party rather than the state. (Personally I don't think the whole senate should have gotten a vote anyway. It should have been great lake states alone)

Yeah, last election people got complacent again and the Eastern Part of the State elected a Democrat to the Senate. While occasionally she gets things right, she voted with the bloc on the CRA to kill the EPA Methane rule, which will hurt revenue at the State level because the BLM land extraction taxes won't be forthcoming if no one can produce the oil there until they have gathering pipelines in place, something the BLM has delayed.
If she'd been beholden to the State Government which is scratching for revenue after binging on fat coffers from the oil boom, she might have voted differently.
Worse yet, McCain, Graham, and Collins, the RINO Trifecta voted against the repeal of the rule, and effectively sealed it. (Grrrrr.)

[txradioguy]

I'm pretty divided on the 17th. I don't see the advantage of the State Senate appointing a Senator. If someone can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.

Prior to the 17th Amendment Senators were picked by the Governor as a representative of the State to conduct business on their behalf in D.C.

The House of Representatives was the "People's House" representing the people of the U.S....the Senate protected the individual State's interest.

With the ratification of the 17th Amendment and with Senators now being sent to D.C. on a popular vote...they had no more incentive to look out for the state that sent them to Washington and started focusing more on collecting and nurturing their own power and wealth.

What could happen is the state senate could be rigged and appoint a pre-chosen person. Could they not?

That pretty much happens now.  Just look at California all that red and yet they are represented at every level in D.C. by Marxists.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Prior to the 17th Amendment Senators were picked by the Governor as a representative of the State to conduct business on their behalf in D.C.

Governors or state legislatures?

[Smokin Joe]

Governors or state legislatures?

The Legislatures. Governors commonly picked replacements if they did not finish their term, but that depended on the State. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The Legislatures. Governors commonly picked replacements if they did not finish their term, but that depended on the State.

That's what I recalled.  The authority to always pick Senators would have placed way too much power into the hands of a Governor.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I'm pretty divided on the 17th. I don't see the advantage of the State Senate appointing a Senator. If someone can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it. 

The Senate was designed to be the voice of the States in the Federal government (states' rights was supreme in the Founders' minds).  Senators were to be chosen by the individual state houses as the representatives of the elected state officeholders.  With the power to select came the power to remove.

The House of Representatives is the direct American voice in the Federal government and the Senate was to be the direct Statehouse voice in the Federal Government.  The 17th Amendment striped the States of that constitutionally guaranteed voice and control in Washington.

Now we have 100 co-presidents with no accountability to the State governments they were designed to represent. 

The original design of the Congress by our Founders was sheer brilliance.

Leave it to entrenched politicians to find a way to eff it up. 

[Right_in_Virginia]

From the article:

Why Repealing the Seventeenth Will Help

One of the fundamental changes that we need to seriously consider right now: repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. As a reminder: the Seventeenth Amendment allows for the direct election of U.S. senators. Previously, state legislators selected senators. The framers of our Constitution believed this process would make senators less tempted by the whims of voters and more concerned with the long-term interests of their states. Less concerned with the trending topic of the moment, these senators would brake the excesses of government expansion.

The shift towards directly electing U.S. senators severed the ties between states and their senators and destroyed the notion of federalism. Instead of representing their state’s interests in Washington DC, working to advance and protect those interests, there are now 100 little kings roaming Capitol Hill doing their own thing. (In the spirit of generosity, let’s say maybe 90 little kings. There are a few stalwarts fighting the good fight to try and rein in government.)

Imagine if the seventeenth were repealed and senators were beholden to their states, not the DC cabal. Consider that every day lobbyists for any variety of interests are in senators’ offices, many seeking carve-outs or increased spending.

The conversations could be along the lines of: “That carve-out on the spending bill is a lovely idea. However, if I do that, I’ll get ignominiously dragged home and replaced.” Senators would be more inclined to be responsive to state legislators, knowing that this educated, engaged, and empowered electorate watches them more closely than normal voters ever could. (For those who would argue extended vacancies by deadlocked legislatures would be a problem, a 90-day confirmation deadline or else a direct appointment by the governor would keep the process moving.)

By firmly mooring senators once more to their states, the states once again gain power and leverage over DC, giving states more control over their own destiny. Federalism would once again become a fact, not a happy little fiction. Whereas power has been consolidating over the last 100 years in Washington DC, repealing the seventeenth would begin a massive return of power back to the states to be the laboratories of democracy they were designed to be. 


http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/12/deliver-real-senate-rule-changes-repeal-17th-amendment/