Feingold: End Senate Appointments

[downtown]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/01/25/feingold_wants_to_end_senate_appointments.html

Sen. Feingold wants to introduce an amendment to the US Constitution that will end the practice of Senate appointments. I assume that in the future, vacancies will be filled via special election. This is to prevent another Blaggo incident I imagine.

Good idea or bad. Poll coming.

 

[Godwynn]

Feingold 2016!

 

[.Shane.]

Hmmm.... I think appointments can work, we just need two things (assuming we're talking about Senate seats):

1. The election to fill the seat happens the next following year, rather than the next election cycle.
2. Create a uniform appointment system.

TBH, I think he's over-reacting.

 

[Bill3000]

It's a state's right to have a corrupt governor sell a senate seat!

 

[bhsup]

Great, thanks. Yet another attempted theft of a States right issue by the by God holier than thou federal government. Feingold can stick up up his kazoo.

EDIT: I voted "I do not think changing the constitution to end Senate appointments is a good idea", but that's a rather weak description of my feelings on this matter.

 

[potatokiosk]

I don't think state's rights applies here. A corrupt senator getting appointed would affect the whole nation because they vote on laws for the whole nation, so this is a national issue, not a state issue.

 

[Death_Machine]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/01/25/feingold_wants_to_end_senate_appointments.html

Sen. Feingold wants to introduce an amendment to the US Constitution that will end the practice of Senate appointments. I assume that in the future, vacancies will be filled via special election. This is to prevent another Blaggo incident I imagine.

Good idea or bad. Poll coming.

Bad idea brought to you by the same knucklehead who brought us "campaign finance reform". Appointments are fine & cost a whole hell of a lot less than another election.

Feingold 2016!

and I thought Obama was bad...........

I don't think state's rights applies here. A corrupt senator getting appointed would affect the whole nation because they vote on laws for the whole nation, so this is a national issue, not a state issue.

Don't feed the troll.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I would prefer to repeal the 17th amendment return the job of selecting Senators to the State Legislatures, which could still opt for elections if they so choose. There is no need for a special procedure for appointing replacements, especially on the Federal level.

Currently state governments have no direct say in the federal governments. The job of Senator should be largely to coordinate the different levels of government, not a stepping stone to the presidency. Senators responsible to state governments would probably be less likely to support unfunded mandates.


I also think that Senators should get their income only from the State, not the Federal Government. I would personally prefer the Senate to work more like Congress under the Articles of Confederation, where State Legislatures could appoint and recall senators at any time, and could send as many or as few as they wish but still only get one vote (I'd probably have each senator have a fraction of the state's vote though instead of having each state's representatives decide on 1 way to vote on everything.)

 

[Dachs]

Great, thanks. Yet another attempted theft of a States right issue by the by God holier than thou federal government. Feingold can stick up up his kazoo.

Why does your average empty-suit governor require the ability to ignore the wishes of his constituents?

 

[GenMarshall]

Bad idea, the appointments of Senators should be left up to the states themselves. If states wanna hold a special election, it's their bussiness .

 

[Gooblah]

I don't think state's rights applies here. A corrupt senator getting appointed would affect the whole nation because they vote on laws for the whole nation, so this is a national issue, not a state issue.

That's the inherent problem with Congress though. Who does the representative/Senator truly represent? His district? His state? His nation? Himself?

We're assuming that he represents his nation; however, he is elected from a specific state or district with the intent to aid that state or district...thus, we have earmarks. Thus, state's rights would apply here.

This is an interesting debate with greater implications regarding how the nation is represented in Congress.

 

[Cutlass]

You can make a push to change the laws in each state easier.

 

[bhsup]

I don't think state's rights applies here. A corrupt senator getting appointed would affect the whole nation because they vote on laws for the whole nation, so this is a national issue, not a state issue.

Original...
and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

Amended...
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such 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.

So as we can see, the Constitution has ALWAYS deferred to the State to fill vacancies. Any power grab by the federalies to prevent this is an attempt to scale back States rights.

Don't feed the troll.

Go blow a donkey. It wasn't a troll. This probably is, though.

Moderator Action: Yup, got that right.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Shadylookin]

well if a state thinks it's a big hassle to elect a replacement through special election then they should at least make it so a governor appointment has to be confirmed by the state legislature.

 

[LucyDuke]

Don't feed the troll.

You must be new here.

 

[t87supra]

This is the only time I have ever heard her say something smart.

 

[potatokiosk]

This is the only time I have ever heard her say something smart.

Who are you talking about?

 

[emzie]

Blago isn't a reason to change the system. If the States themselves decide otherwise, that's their business.

 

[bhsup]

This is the only time I have ever heard her say something smart.

You must be new here, too.

 

[amadeus]

It's not the federal government's business.