Tennessee State Senator Frank Niceley (R-Strawberry Plains) has introduced SB 1883. It would abolish primaries for U.S. Senate. Instead, members of the state legislature who are members of a particular party would nominate their party’s U.S. Senate nominees.
back to olde time ROT / CORRUPTION — via oligarch nomination machinations
This is a step in the right direction. Repealing the 17th amendment would be even better, along with most of the other 19th and 20th century amendments.
What about minor parties without representatives in the Tennessee legislature?
“What about minor parties without representatives in the Tennessee legislature?”
Maybe this will be an incentive for minor parties to actually elect people on the state level.
Reed is correct. The 17th Amendment is garbage and should be repealed. The Senate is meant to be the house of the States, representing States’ rights. This a step in the right direction.
“What about minor parties without representatives in the Tennessee legislature?”
“Maybe this will be an incentive for minor parties to actually elect people on the state level.”
I haven’t seen the bill, but I wouldn’t be surprised if only Republicans and Democrats will be allowed in the general election, even if there is a Libertarian in the Senate.
Why should a party that can’t even elect one legislator run for US Senate? That’s like a middle school dropout applying for medical school. Focus on getting to one level before considering the next or the one after that.
STATES – FICTIONAL *PERSONS*
USA SENATE – PERHAPS ***THE*** MOST ANTI-DEMOCRACY MINORITY RULE LEGISLATIVE BODY IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION.
PRODUCED ADDED FREE/SLAVE STATE MACHINATIONS 1776-1861 >>> 750,000 DEAD IN 1861-1866.
ABOLISH IT OR ELECT IT USING P.R.
Why does Reed hate America?
And, Mr. Libertarian hates America because he’s an “L.” Show me where the Constitution says what you say.
Some people don’t understand the role played by minor parties in the U.S., throughout history. Parties that don’t elect people can still influence policy. This is high-school civics stuff, and it has been true starting with the Liberty Party of 1840 that was the first organization to suggest that slavery should be abolished.
The Tennessee bill says parties other than the Republican and Democratic Parties can choose their U.S. Senate nominees the old-fashioned way. The bill does not exclude them from running for U.S. Senate.
This is a better solution than repealing the 17th Amendment, which is very unlikely to happen.
Each state is free under the 17th to determine how Senate candidates are nominated, provided that the people vote for them in the final election.
Gadfly thinks I hate America because I want to return to the Constitution of the Founders and get rid of most of the later amendments? Does that mean the founders hated America given the Constitution they gave us??
Show you where it says that…see the original text that was changed by the 17th amendment. Then read the debates in the federalist and antifederalist papers. The reasons for different ways to elect the House and Senate and the separate function of each is discussed.
ALL THE MAIN ELECTION POINTS MUST BE IN CONSTITUTIONS TO ****NOT**** HAVE ANTI-DEMOCRACY MONARCH/OLIGARCH MACHINATIONS — IE RESULTS.
—-
NOOOO PRIMARIES.
EQUAL BALLOT ACCESS
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
“ Gadfly thinks I hate America because I want to return to the Constitution of the Founders and get rid of most of the later amendments? Does that mean the founders hated America given the Constitution they gave us??”
No… but it does mean they didn’t have the foresight to craft a constitution that would be free from every possible flaw. See “general welfare” in the preamble to the enumerated powers (discussed at length in the federalist and antifederalist papers – hint the anti-federalists were correct here, the phrase was perverted to mean something completely different than what was intended) and the word “unreasonable” in the fourth amendment (see the TSA for this). The 17th amendment was passed because of corruption at the state level by corporations and unions to get the legislatures to elect candidates favorable to their preferred policies. Politicians in the era thought direct elections would alleviate this issue; unfortunately it just brought lobbyists directly to DC.
The founders weren’t infallible. Thankfully they did have the foresight to understand that civilizations and societies grow and change, and therefore need the ability to adapt their government to that growth, so they gave us the amendment process.
Governments receive their right to exist from the consent of the governed, amendments let government adapt to better serve the will of the people.
I’m not against any and all amendments as a general rule, just against most of those which actually passed.
The reason the 17th amendment passed was that the old system of electing Senators was causing so much trouble. Sometimes legislatures deadlocked on choosing a Senator, and a state might go an entire year iwth a vacancy in a Senate seat. Also, there were numerous instances of wealthy individuals who wanted to be a US Senator bribing state legislators.
That sounds like a problem that would not be a problem today.
Personally, I’d like to see a repeal of the 16th, 17th, 19th, 21st, 22nd, 24th, and 26th Amendments
EACH STATE HAD ONE VOTE IN THE 1776-1781 2ND CONTINENTAL CONGRESS AND THE 1781-1789 ART CONFED CONGRESS.
DE FACTO ALMOST FATAL — IN AM REV WAR AND POST WAR.
1789-NOW- EACH STATE HAVING 2 USA SENATORS >>> EVEN MORE FATAL.
WY = CA — YEAH SURE – MINDLESS STUPIDITY.
Mr. Libertarian – I heartily agree on repealing all of those, as well as the 14th, 15th and 23rd. The 13th is at this point useless clutter that should be repealed as well; it’s not like chattel slavery will get reintroduced, but the descendants of those who were deprived of their then legally owned property without compensation deserve reparations with interest.
While there have been a very few useful amendments after Lincoln’s illegal war, they are tainted by the fruit of a poison tree, that is by the fact that the government has been illegal since that time. After Lincoln illegally forced states back into the Union, they were either kept from voting on amendments or voted under federally imposed puppet governments. Since those amendments changed subsequent voting, it would be best to repeal every amendment from the 13th onwards and cleanly reapprove the few good ones.
There are parts of the 14th Amendment I’d like to repeal like the ambiguous wording on birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship is an abomination. However I generally agree that all governments, state and local, should abide by the Bill of Rights.
It has been overextended by the courts to insert the federal government into state and local matters that go against the Constitutional design. It’s a big part of why the federal government is way too big and way too powerful. It was also approved in an illegitimate way, with many states under federal occupation at the time. The whole thing needs to be scrapped. States today would do a better job of balancing state and individual rights than the feds do.
I agree that birthright citizenship is an abomination, and I hope that you will agree that giving presidential electors to the federal district is likewise. If anything, it would be better to go in the other direction, and strip federal employees and contractors who live in the various states or abroad of the right to vote. Among many others who should be stripped of that right. Far, far too many people who have no business voting are cu
I agree with you. The 23rd Amendment should be repealed. And you’ve made a good case to scrap the 14th amendment.
I would like a simple amendment to replace the 14th amendment that says all state and local governments should include and enforce the bill of rights in their operating document(s).
@RW,
Failure to elect was usually caused when the election of a senator required concurrence between the two houses. This was largely overcome when Congress exrcising its manner regulation over senate elections, required election by a single body with repeat trials once per week while the legislature was in session.
Only rarely were there three factions that produced a deadlock. If a state legislature fails to elect a senator it is hardly a problem for the country as a whole.
The real problem was that senatorial elections were contaminating legislative elections. The Lincoln-Douglas debates were intended to promote the election of legislators favoring Lincoln or Douglas, when legislators should be focused on state issues.
Popular election of senators has led to senators no longer acting as agents of their state. Senator Barack Obama seemed proud of the fact that he had no contact with the governor of his state Rod Blagojevich, for several years.
It would be better to abolish the Senate and instead require passage of any federal legislation by a majority of state legislatures that also had a majority of the population.
@JR:
“It would be better to abolish the Senate and instead…”
Abolishing the Senate would require the unanimous consent of every state. The Constitution is quite specific about that.
Wouldn’t it just take a constitutional amendment?