12 Replies to “A Feingold Amendment That Makes Sense [Dan Collins]”

1. eCurmudgeon says:

   January 26, 2009 at 10:26 am

   As opposed to going back to the time-honored practice of picking Senators via state legislatures (i.e. repealing the 17th Ammendment)?

2. Curmudgeon says:

   January 26, 2009 at 10:48 am

   Uh, no, it actually doesn’t make sense.

   I did read the 17th Amendment to the Constitution once. It says:

   When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

   Some have criticized the 17th amendment as a serious blow to Federalism, but for now I’m not going to argue that. Rather, it’s the law of the land, an amended Constitution, as provided for by the states that created it.

   States created the federal government. Not the other way around.

3. McGehee says:

   January 26, 2009 at 11:02 am

   For most people “congressional” refers to the House of Representatives, where special elections are indeed required. Immediately after 9/11, in fact, there was an idea circulated to have vacant seats in the House filled by appointment if there was a wholesale loss of life among its members, a la Tom Clancy’s novel about a 747 flown into the Capitol during a joint session.

   In terms of the Senate, I think it would make far more sense to let anybody be a Senator who wants to be, provided that as soon as they’re sworn into that body they immediately leave the country, renounce their citizenship, and never return on pain of drawing and quartering.

   Not that I lack respect for members of the Senate or anything.

4. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

   January 26, 2009 at 11:24 am

   Personally, I think we should go back to having all of the Senators appointed. The 17th Amendment altered the separation of powers in a way that I don’t think was very good, frankly.

   We had a run of bad amendments along there — the 16th, 17th, 18th were all ill-advised, IMO (the 15th and 19th were fine).

5. Bob Reed says:

   January 26, 2009 at 11:39 am

   The 17th amendment ruined the Senate…

   Instead of a body of august and thoughtful individuals, appointed by the method chosen by their state legislatures, who were intended to both represent the intersts of their respective states as well as act as a bulwark against fleeting and faddish popular whims, it ensured that it too would be a body of folks that had simply won a poularity contest…

   Guys like Feingold can get away with this because people have lost touch with the fact that the intent of the framers was that we live in a representative republic, and not a simple democracy. Among other things, the senate was supposed to be a check on unbridled populism, which could actually work against the long-term interests of the nation.

   Feingolds proposed amendment would further diminish the rights of the states in our union…

6. Akatsukami says:

   January 26, 2009 at 12:12 pm

   Tomorrow I will introduce the 29th Amendment: “If any state legislature passes the buck on filling Senatorial vacancies to the executive authority, the members thereof shall be required to wear orange fright wigs, spherical red rubber noses, and white makeup for life.”

7. MAJ (P) John says:

   January 26, 2009 at 1:01 pm

   #6 – couldn’t do anything in IL to lower the State Legislature’s stature any more.

8. libocrat says:

   January 26, 2009 at 1:36 pm

   I’d like to note that LIBERALS tell us that the Constitution is living and breathing. I live in Wisconsin, Russ Feingold is hardly ever right. He’s a nut. In this case, he is probably right.

9. Mikey NTH says:

   January 26, 2009 at 5:34 pm

   #2 Curmedgeon:

   In light of direct election of both houses of Congress, then filling vacancies by special election makes sense. It avoids the Jean Carnahan situation. I don’t see any sustainable movement to put the selection of US Senators back in the state legislators; and in light of what has happened recently in Illinois and New York, I can see support for a special election.

   #5 Bob Reed:

   Some may have been august individuals, but others may have just been political jobbers who had the most support amongst the members of their own party. State legislators are far from immune to peculation’s lure; and may be even more beholden to powerful interests in their own states.

10. meya says:

    January 26, 2009 at 6:48 pm

    “Among other things, the senate was supposed to be a check on unbridled populism, which could actually work against the long-term interests of the nation.”

    Having a senate wasn’t enough to keep government out of the hands of the people. They thought to have another filter of government in the middle — state legislatures.

11. McGehee says:

    January 26, 2009 at 8:02 pm

    Thing is, Mikey, there’s no point in holding out for perfection in any endeavor — least of all politics. I think repealing the 17th would improve things in ways not immediately apparent fromthe rpesent situation.

    Although, I was really looking forward to a few D&Qs…

12. Mikey NTH says:

    January 26, 2009 at 9:13 pm

    #11 McGeHee:

    That’s the thing – repealing the 17th Amendment would bring back all of the abuses it was to correct. The overriding problem is human nature.

Comments are closed.