The 28th Amendment may have been conceived today

baldheadeddork · 01-26-2009, 09:15 PM

Russ Feingold introduces a proposal for an amendment that would remove the ability of governors to appoint replacement senators. If passed, states would have to create the framework for special elections, the same as they do for replacements in the House of Representatives.

Feingold's press release:

Quote:

"The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end. In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators. They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people. I plan to introduce a constitutional amendment this week to require special elections when a Senate seat is vacant, as the Constitution mandates for the House, and as my own state of Wisconsin already requires by statute. As the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I will hold a hearing on this important topic soon."

Does anyone think this won't pass and become the 28th Amendment? I only wonder if it will beat the time set by the 21st, which repealed prohibition. That went to the states in April 1933 and was ratified that December.

Nice job, Senator Feingold.

405clothing · 01-26-2009, 09:17 PM

it probably wont pass

flylooper · 01-26-2009, 09:35 PM

Boy, that would really change things!!

cacapants · 01-26-2009, 10:40 PM

I don't think its a bad idea, but I don't think it will pass.

Tripped1 · 01-26-2009, 11:35 PM

No way in hell this congress has the stones to open a Constitutional Congress.

PhilB · 01-27-2009, 02:03 AM

Popularly electing Senators was a mistake, and ought to be repealed. The idea was that the House would represent the will of the people, and the Senate would represent the power of the states, as a check against the excesses of the federal government over the states (which has predictably run rampant since).

PhilB

Wakey · 01-27-2009, 08:29 AM

What a waste of time given the challenges before us.

Gaolee · 01-27-2009, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wakey

What a waste of time given the challenges before us.

Ah, crap, I'm agreeing with Wakey. Time to drink heavily.

county · 01-27-2009, 10:03 AM

Knee jerk

jerome_oneil · 01-27-2009, 10:05 AM

I think Fiengold's amendment is a bad idea. The state legislatures should have the power to decide how a Senator is appointed. We aren't talking about an elected position, we're talking about one where a person reaches office without an act of the people.

If a state chooses to grant the Governor that power, it's none of the Fed's business.

jerome_oneil · 01-27-2009, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by county

Knee jerk

Precisely. I think it's pretty comic how Blago has become the punching bag for everyone, while the long list of GOP criminals still has a long list of apologists.

Culture of corruption, and all that...

Wakey · 01-27-2009, 10:21 AM

What's next from our great leaders, hearings on Monster Truck show safety?

jim schmidt · 01-27-2009, 12:44 PM

It's not winding me up either. But that shouldn't cause us to overlook PhilBs latest nuttiness. That topic is far more entertaining.

Baldrick · 01-27-2009, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilB

Popularly electing Senators was a mistake, and ought to be repealed. The idea was that the House would represent the will of the people, and the Senate would represent the power of the states, as a check against the excesses of the federal government over the states (which has predictably run rampant since).

PhilB

So you want the equivalent of the Commons/Lords system the Brits had for centuries (I know, positions in the upper house are now elected, too, but only recently)? You know, state government appointed land/large business owners (our version of the nobility) only in the Senate, and the great unwashed peasants only get to elect the representatives in the House. That'll go over really well...

PhilB · 01-27-2009, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baldrick

So you want the equivalent of the Commons/Lords system the Brits had for centuries (I know, positions in the upper house are now elected, too, but only recently)? You know, state government appointed land/large business owners (our version of the nobility) only in the Senate, and the great unwashed peasants only get to elect the representatives in the House. That'll go over really well...

The concept of federalism was that the states would be largely politically independent and the federal government would be minimal. Congress was designed to help maintain this balance, by giving the people one house, and the states the other house, to balance each other and against the executive power of the feds. States would get to decide for themselves how to appoint senators, including the option, if a state decided, of electing them.

The federal government has grown ever larger and more intrusive into state affairs, and this has a great deal to with the fact that state governments no longer have much say in federal governance, due to the 17th Amendment.

And all of this wasn't and wouldn't be the "equivalent of the Commons/Lords system the Brits had for centuries". Different systems entirely.

PhilB