Repeal the 17th Amendment and go back to allowing States to select their representative at the Federal level.
This will ensure citizens pay close attention to their local state reps and whom those reps vote on to send to Congress.
States will then be empowered again. States will have a voice, and citizens will be directly focused on the House Representative they elect at a Federal level, along with the State level rep they elect.
In many states currently a US Sentor can be elected by 1 large city while ingoring the rest of the state. Example: Dick Durban being elected by Cook County/ Chicago.
2 Likes
Oh man, I am sad to see that this only has 2 votes, well 3 when I vote for it. This would be huge and return us to the original vision the founders had for the election of Congress. The House is the “People’s House” and should be voted directly by the people, since they are the closest to the people. The Senate is supposed to represent each state, and therefore Senators should be beholden to the states. As the Constitution was written, state legislatures were given the authority to decide who their Senators were, via a selection by the legislature or vote, or however they wanted to decide. But key here was that each state’s legislative body was to pick the Senators to represent their state at a federal level. The 17th amendment has allowed Senators to have no accountability to the state they represent, and unfortunately opened the door for lobbiests to control corrupt senators. Repealing the 17th Amendment would help to root out the corruption in DC and make Sentors beholden to the states they are representing.
This is a big one and I agree with it 100%. Repealing the 17th amendment allows for the house to recall senators from their state. We wouldn’t get Pelosi, Schiff, McConnell, Feinstein, etc. as they’d absolutely be recalled by their state legislature and the house of representatives.
1 Like
I agree with repealing the 17th amendment but the amendment repealing it needs to implement an additional change as well.
@treilly6 repealing the 17th amendment would allow both houses of most State legislatures to recall their Senators (not the house), but it would not do much to prevent a Pelosi, Schiff, McConnell, Feinstein, etc. from holding office as most State Legislatures go through periods where they are just as corrupt (if not more sometimes) than the US Congress. Most people go from their State legislature to the federal legislature after they have gotten experience so its the same type of corruption in both cases.
That said, it would require fewer people to recall a Senator if they were held accountable by the State Legislature that appointed them, than it is to have enough citizens of a State paying attention to what their Senator does, and prompting them to gather a petition with sufficient signatures of registered voters in the State to petition for a recall. State governments would more jealously guard against federal usurpation and overreach if the State government ITSELF were responsible for appointing, directing and recalling their own senators rather than taking it away from them and placing it into the hands of the masses of people occupied with non-governmental things most of the time except when it comes time for an election, in which case they are over 90% likely to vote for the incumbent than someone new.
Originally, the 17th amendment was meant to solve an issue where when a vacancy happened in the Senate or a Senator was recalled by the State legislature, the State legislature would get busy with other business and fail to appoint a Senator as a replacement, or would just leave the seat vacant.
The constitution originally stated “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.” but it did not specify that a State MUST be represented by two Senators, leaving the option for a State to voluntarily be under-represented or entirely unrepresented in the Senate, if the State so chose (or simply failed to come to an agreement as to who to appoint for that purpose).
The issues here are:
- As part of the federal compact between States, does a State have the right to be under-represented or entirely unrepresented in the Senate? There is a case where a State should have that right since it is not prohibited in the Constitution, but in order for the federal system to work properly, each State in the Senate is ASSUMED to be equally represented. Thus, revealing one of the flaws in the Constitution that needs correcting. I would argue that a State, by agreeing to ratify the Constitution, has accepted the responsibility and duty to appropriately participate in the Congress and Electoral College System. Thus, it is already implied and expected that each State WOULD supply two Senators for the Senate and that failure to maintain a two Senator representation in the Senate constitutes a breach of the federal contract and the State is in violation of its constitutional duties.
Thus, I would remedy this omission of the Constitution in specifically specifying the length of time that is acceptable for a Senate seat to remain vacant in the event of a Senator’s death, incapacity, resignation, conviction of a crime making them ineligible to serve in the Senate, or recall, and
- Specifying a back up process to overcome the potential gridlock, or absolute failure of a legislature to make the necessary Senatorial appointments. This would include enumerating executive powers to enforce the constitutional provisions when faced with non-compliance since the president’s responsibility is to enforce the Constitution and the laws and treaties made under its authority, as well as respecting State sovereignty as much as is possible before authorizing federal action.
In repealing the 17th amendment these two issues should be addressed. I propose the following:
Section 1.
The 17th Amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed.
Section 2.
No State shall be deprived of its full representation in the Senate for more than 20 days.
(a) Upon a vacancy in the Senate due to death, incapacity, resignation, ineligibility, or recall by the Legislature of a State, the Chief Executive Officer of that State shall appoint a temporary Senator within 10 days of the vacancy to ensure uninterrupted representation.
(b) The temporary Senator shall assume office upon being sworn in, which must occur no later than five days after their appointment.
(c) The Legislature of the State shall appoint a permanent Senator to fill the vacancy. Such appointment must occur within 60 days of the vacancy or, if the State Legislature is not in session, within 60 days of its next convening. The permanent appointee shall assume office upon being sworn in.
Section 3.
If the Chief Executive Officer fails to appoint a temporary Senator within the required time, the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court shall make the appointment within five days.
Section 4.
If the State Legislature fails to appoint a permanent Senator within the required timeframe, the temporary Senator shall continue to serve until the Legislature fulfills its duty. However, their term may not exceed one year from the date of appointment.
Section 5.
(a) The President of the United States shall have power to compel a State Legislature to convene and fulfill its required obligation to appoint Senators to the Senate of the United States only if the term of a temporary appointee is set to expire within 30 days and the State Legislature has failed to make the necessary appointments.
(b) The power of the president shall extend only to compelling the attendance of the State Legislature to meet in their designated meeting place in accordance with State law, and he may deny recesses, adjournments, or the conducting of other business, unless such business cannot admit of delay. But, such power shall not extend to any aspect of Senatorial nomination, supporting or opposing a candidate, or in any way infringing upon the freedom of the Legislators by influencing or interfering with their decisions.
(c) Upon the State Legislatures making all necessary appointments to restore the State’s required representation in the Senate, the power of the president shall immediately end.
(d) At the conclusion of the temporary Senator’s one year term; or if the president determines the Legislature is unlikely to agree upon an appointment by the end of the temporary Senator’s one-year term and not sooner than thirty days before his expiration; the president may compel a special election by statewide popular vote to be held within sixty days and for all nominated candidates by the Legislature, the temporary Senator, and any resident of the State qualified by State and federal law as eligible for the Senate who choose to file, to be listed on the ballot. The temporary Senator shall remain in office beyond the end of their term until the duly elected permanent Senator is sworn into the Senate.
Section 6.
The president must notify Congress upon exercising authority under section 5 of this article and provide regular updates no more than one week apart, and Congress may enact resolutions or provide oversight to ensure the president’s actions remain consistent with the purpose of this amendment.
Section 7.
Congress shall have the authority to enact laws to enforce and clarify this amendment’s provisions, including the resolution of disputes related to Senate appointments and vacancies.
1 Like
Ah, I see what you’re saying. It’s mostly having to do with prolonged under-representation in the senate. A state’s governor is given time to find a suitable replacement, but if not then it’s the state court’s decision before becoming a federal injunction. Then and only then, if after a year without an appointment will there be the need for a popular vote election.
Basically, for the unusual exceptions where appointing another senator is impossible or very unlikely, the president should require a state legislature to host something akin to a special election.
Good catch. I didn’t even think about it.