We see many examples of why the direct elections of officials is necessary, even here in Wyoming. We witnessed our own governors nomination of his wife who received an appointment from the Obama administration. (I am not suggesting that she was not qualified). Then we see another example in the fact that governor Dave polled his popularity to test his re-electability. If he thought he had a good chance of being re-elected he would challenge the term limit law. As a result of the polling Dave is not challenging the term limit law. Obviously he did not feel that he was re-electable but why did he not challenge the term limit law anyway if he thinks that it is unconstitutional? I hope this helps to show why the "good ole boy, what's in it for me" system might not be the best and why we need to protect the direct election rather than having elected officials make the appointments.
John from Wyo
Representative Landon's house bill asking for support to repeal the 17th Amendment in the US Constitution was pretty short-sighted. Today, it's popular to slam the Feds, so why didn't he focus on emphasizing the exercise of the 10th Amendment? As poor of an idea it was, it made me wonder if Representative even knew the language of the 17th Amendment. It wasn't the first time bad ideas have been written into legislative bills. The direct election of any of our elected officials should never be compromised.
When I first saw this covered in the media, I thought I was witnessing some kind of joke. Then I thought that perhaps I was going back in time, caught in some type of time warp. In checking the history of this more recent move to amend the constitution, I found that this notion is rather popular with certian "wingnuts" who see this as a way for states to regain some of their power and authority. As far as I can see there is no evidence to suggest that such a move would actually restore any more than perhaps a modicum of state sovereignty.
With popular election of US senators, states still have ultimate control over their senators - it is called the ballot box. If voters in any given state determine that any paricular senator is not protecting the interests of citizens of that state, they can proceed to boot that senator out of office at the next election. Giving this power directly to the citizens of a state puts this control where it rightfully belongs - with the people!
One comment here suggested that our constitutional system was set up as a federal system, not a democracy. While it is true enough that the Framers of the Constitution displayed a strong distrust of yielding too much power to the people directly (e.g. under the orignal document the only officials under this new government that were directly elected by the people were our representatives in the US House [not the president or vice president, US senators, or judges] and suffrage under the original Constitution was extremely limited, as a relatively small percentage of the population could actually vote in elections around that time), the historical evolution of our constitutional system has seen a variety of constitutional amendments and other systemic changes that have resulted in a more democratic system. The 17th Amendment is one such change - and an important one at that. The proposal to repeal the 17th is an ill-conceived step backwards that would take us back to the "good ole' days" of cronyism and political corruption that tended to taint the process when state legislatures hand-picked the states' US senators.
The Republic was set up as a federal system, not a democracy. Since the passage of the 17th Amendment the States have lost power to an increasingly powerful Federal government. The Senate was to represent the concerns of the States at the Federal level - not merely be a second form of representation for the people. The best way to select Senators would be to make them Ambassadors of the States and subject to recall anytime the Governor of the State wishes.
I don't trust, nor do I want the state legislature choosing our senators. This who business was grandstanding by those who did not want to support the firearms freedom and other states rights legislation last year.
The current method of electing Senators as provided by the 17th Amendment is the right way in my opinion. The people of the state determine who gets into the various political offices and not those in the political offices. I would like to see voter turnout much higher. If you are interested in Wyoming check here (http://soswy.state.wy.us/Electio...)
"The people of the state determine who gets into the various political offices"....
Maybe you need to look at the current election laws... After you spend about a month looking at the PILE of paper that restricts who can run you will see......
The "People" only pick from a select few who were placed on the ballot by other politician higher than them...
Not certain what the impedus for this particular question is, but nonetheless, the 17th Amendment has stood as is since April 8, 1913. As far as I'm concerned it's working pretty well and I see no reason to change it now.
How old are you? Sorry thought I would ask, I found your comment about how well things are working interesting. I still have to give the question some thought... Wasn't it December something in 1913 that three or so senators snuck into congress and passed the banking act ? Was that a fair representation on the people? It's been around since 1913 so I guess under your opinion it is "AOK' glad to know where you stand.. Again would like to know how old you are if you don’t mind me asking..
Old "enough", - in my opinion! Uncertain what the Banking Act has to do with the 17th Amendment either. But here goes as to the primary inquiry.
My point is rather simple. At present, each state is given two Senators. I like that level of representation in the Senate. If it were to change through some other apportionment or redistricting formula, then smaller constituents, like the State of Wyoming, would certainly suffer with less representation in Washington.
Lastly, ones age is entirely irrelevant under such a discussion forum. Probing questions of a personal nature are just that, personal, and should remain so - in my opinion!
"ones age is entirely irrelevant "
Yes it is relevant, the general thinking and voting of past generations have got us to this point in time.. Seems to me you feel all is well..
"My point is rather simple. At present, each state is given two Senators. “Representation"
I would agree with you on this one for the most part, that’s why I was on the fence as to how I viewed the poll question.. I think if the Senate was doing their JOB, I would have voted not to change anything.... HOWEVER from the point where 90% of Americans TOLD the Senators NOT to vote for the 700 BILLION dollar bank and GM bail out, and they went ahead and did it anyway I feel that shows NO "representation".. Again, I feel the older generation thinks everything is fine, and that going against the peoples will was a good and normal thing to do..
"Uncertain what the Banking Act has to do with the 17th Amendment"
This speaks to the point where you stated that any ACT that has been around since 1913 has to be good... This is just not true, but once again the older generation that got us to this point dont care as long as there Social Security checks keep rolling in I guess. At least Congress was good enough to pull their cost of living increase for Social Security this year.... Wait until inflation kicks into high gear that should be interesting...
Maybe the post did not zero in on the "17 Amendment"... However when thinking about making any changes to the constitution you can NOT have such linier thinking... There are to many moving parts today in how the game of politics is played...