United States Senator calls for Repeal of 17th Amendment (Direct Election of Senators)

[bullethead]

Ben Sasse Calls For Repealing The 17th Amendment

Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in an op-ed published by The Wall Street Journal.

dailycaller.com

Sasse’s op-ed, titled, “Make the Senate Great Again,” suggested several Senate reforms “aimed at promoting debate, not ending it.”

...

“Ratified in 1912, it replaced the appointment of senators by state legislatures with direct election,” he wrote. “Different states bring different solutions to the table, and that ought to be reflected in the Senate’s national debate. The old saying used to be that all politics is local, but today—thanks to the internet, 24/7 cable news and a cottage industry dedicated to political addiction—politics is polarized and national. That would change if state legislatures had direct control over who serves in the Senate.”

The Nebraska senator’s list of reforms also included abolishing standing committees, requiring senators to show up for debates, term limits, and requiring senators to live together in dorms when in Washington.

Honestly, I think this could be a good idea, but as part of a broader Amendment that implemented some of the other reforms he proposed, like abolishing standing committees, making senators show up for debates, putting senators in dorms, and added some safe guards against corruption. That's mostly because, from my understanding of what was intended, the Senate was supposed to be a counterweight against rapid change and to give the states a say in the federal government.

That said, we could use a few other amendments to fix some of our other modern problems.

 

[LordsFire]

I would favor going back to state governments selecting Senators however it pleases them.

I'd also support an amendment switching the House of Representatives to a gross national vote system, and another making it so that you have to pay more money into the Fed than you get out if it specifically if you want to vote for a Representative, since that's where the power of the purse is theoretically supposed to reside.

That would change the Democrats (and some Republicans) tune on vote buying really bloody quickly.

 

[Husky_Khan]

I'm not sure on the replacing of the direct election of Senators with that of State Legislatures. I get the point in regards to rapid political shifts at the whims of a populace drunk off of national and social media and State Legislators could help with that but I don't see how it could help with the political balance in the Senate now or in the future. But at the end of the Daily Caller article, I do find this to be interesting...

The Nebraska senator’s list of reforms also included abolishing standing committees, requiring senators to show up for debates, term limits, and requiring senators to live together in dorms when in Washington.

These do sound rather interesting.

 

[Bacle]

I like some of the secondary ideals behind this, but am sceptical about adding anymore 'appointed' offices/officials to the swamp.

That just seems like it's less democratic, not more.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

Yes.

Direct Election of Senators removed the primary federal level power of the States; it was a fundamentally bad idea done for false reasons.

Granted, what we should do is the following (all via Amendment):
1) Repeal the 17th Amendment.
2) Fix the House of Representatives so that at the time of the Census each state gets 1 Representative per 100,000 citizens (compromise to Citizens or Permanent Residents).
3) Electors to the Electoral College are distributed as follows: 2 Electors (for the Senators) to whomever wins the state popular vote, 1 Elector per Congressional District won. States are explicitly barred from assigning Electors in any other manner.
4) Federal Elections shall have Early Voting no earlier than November 1st and shall only allow Absentee Voting for members of the federal government whose governmental duties make it impossible for them to reach a polling place. Mail in voting, proxy voting, and other Absentee Voting is explicitly not allowed for federal elections. All voting machines shall produce a paper receipt at the time of voting and 10% of all polling places shall be randomly selected for a federally observed audit where paper ballots are matched to electronic votes.
5) The Supreme Court shall consist of 9 members, and with an 8-1 vote SCOTUS shall have the authority to remove a Supreme Court justice; in addition, with a unanimous vote SCOTUS shall be able to remove from office any federal judge. Supreme Court justices are forcibly retired at the end of the next full term after their 85th birthday (so if they turn 85 while SCOTUS is in session then they get to serve out the rest of that term and the next full term before they are retired)

 

[LordsFire]

Interesting ideas Tippy. At a glance, I think I'd support all of them.

Though with a caveat for the forced age retirement, that if life expectancy (and functionality) drastically rise over a certain bar, that'd be nullified.

 

[Typhonis]

They could use the repeal to close up a loop hole. Nothing in the Constitution says a Supreme Court Justice has to have prior legal experience.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Rather than an age limit I'd prefer to see something like a mandatory mental and physical checkup yearly with the person in question being retired for failing specific benchmarks. Some folks can be spry and vigorous a surprisingly long time and others fall apart young.

I don't much like the notion of SCOTUS removing a member on their own by voting, that power is given to congress as part of the checks and balances system for a reason.

 

[Sailor.X]

I would be for it on only one condition. The Country Club/ Chamber of Commerce type don't use the Good Old Boy system to put only their friends in as Senators. Candidates should be selected from a broad spectrum across a state. That not only means the usual Businessmen and Lawyers but. Blue Collar people who work for a living. For far too long only the Elites have gotten in. And that needs to stop.

 

[Bacle]

I would be for it on only one condition. The Country Club/ Chamber of Commerce type don't use the Good Old Boy system to put only their friends in as Senators. Candidates should be selected from a broad spectrum across a state. That not only means the usual Businessmen and Lawyers but. Blue Collar people who work for a living. For far too long only the Elites have gotten in. And that needs to stop.

Put in a 'cannot make more than x amount per year' qualification on candidates so that money becomes the inverse of power.

 

[LordsFire]

Put in a 'cannot make more than x amount per year' qualification on candidates so that money becomes the inverse of power.

A few, among many, reasons this will not end well.

1. Redefining what counts as 'making money in a year.'
2. Inciting class warfare.
3. Encourages rich people to try to buy Senators rather than become Senators.
4. Financial success is not a valid reason to deny a person access to an elected office.
5. Encourages creating a very specific class of people who run for office. Like we already have, but worse.
6. Creates an incentive for those elected to the office to accept off-the-books income.

 

[Doomsought]

Put in a 'cannot make more than x amount per year' qualification on candidates so that money becomes the inverse of power.

Then you will just get the asshole children of the rich who use food-stamps to buy caviar.