so! do you want the tn. legislature to pick your senators?

[JRWnTN]

To those who think we're better off with the state legislature choosing our senators, I have a couple things for you to consider: U.S. Senator Jimmy Naifeh, followed by U.S. Senator Debra Maggart.

 

The idea of state legislatures electing senators may have been a good idea in the 18th and 19th centuries, but I see no advantage to the nit-wits in the legislature making that decision.  From my recollection of history, there were good reasons for the 17th Amendment.

Edited April 5, 2013 by JRWnTN

[RobertNashville]

And those who think the voters do a better job I have a couple of things for you to think about, Senator Corker and Senator Alexander; both of whom vote FOR Obummer's policies more often than not and both of whom have always been big government establishment Republicans.

 

It doesn't matter now anyway...the illustrious Senator Corker KILLED THIS BILL yesterday with a call to, guess who, Speaker Harwell who then asked that the bill be pulled.

 

Yeah...we are doing SOOOOOOOOOO well with the Senators we have now. :shake:

[Worriedman]

Having delved into the policy makers and those who rule the Parties, one can only imagine that Dunn, Frist and Alexander are going to be the ones picking the candidates whoever is supposed to make the choices.  Keep in mind, Haslam and Harwell are key campaign managers, and, have always been for Alexander.  The 17th Amendment is what makes being a Federal senator the safest job in America.  If you can bring the bacon home to your moneyed supporters, you ride that train till you fall witless from the throne, Ted Kennedy and Strom Thurman come to mind, (even if they were out of their's while still "serving").  The 17th is what birthed "career" politicians.

 

If there were true change to the power structure involved in Niceley's bill, I would have been all over it, but if you read the text, it simply makes the money move through the legislators on its way to the candidates, letting them skim a little and control a little more power than if the depositors simply deal direct with the candidates themselves.

[seez52]

I belive the reason the 17th was enacted had something to do with some shenagians pulled by the legislators in Chicago. They were corrupt (duh) and had fixed their senators for a while so the 17th was developed to fix the problem. Chicago has always been the bain of our existance, even today.

 

Either fix the 17th or forget nibbling around the edge as this bill does. And lets put some term limits in there too and really get back to the Founders intent!! Or, go to a distributed governing body so that not every elected official is in one place. The Founders originally considered this as well.

[Chucktshoes]

The reason for the 17th was that it was a common occurrence for state legislatures to be unable to come to agreement on whom to choose as Senator leaving the post vacant for extended periods of time. The 17th remedied this problem by changing the selection of Senators to direct election. The problem is that the law of unintended consequences bit the states in the ass by removing from them their voice in the federal government. This set down the fertile soil for the overtaking of the federal government by the socialists and statists in both parties that control it today. The 17th was very much like a shot to the Republic's lung with a .22. While not instantly fatal, it is a mortal wound when left untreated resulting in a slow and painful death as the nation drowns in its own lifeblood (the accumulation of money and power in places it doesn't belong).

Edited April 5, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[Guest PapaB]

To those who think we're better off with the state legislature choosing our senators, I have a couple things for you to consider: U.S. Senator Jimmy Naifeh, followed by U.S. Senator Debra Maggart.

 

The idea of state legislatures electing senators may have been a good idea in the 18th and 19th centuries, but I see no advantage to the nit-wits in the legislature making that decision.  From my recollection of history, there were good reasons for the 17th Amendment.

 

Had Naifeh been made Senator, he'd have been removed when the Repub's took over (instant term limits).

 

Ask yourself this question. Is it less difficult to get rid of an incumbent U.S. Senator or an incumbent State legislator? If you're not sure, look at the political history in TN. When was the last time we removed an incumbent U.S. Senator, running for re-election, from office? Since that happened, how many times have we replaced an incumbent State legislator who was running for re-election?

[Guest HvyMtl]

Hmm, ask Maggart.