GOP Wants To Repeal The 17th Amendment

[crashhelmet]

From NPR:
Rethinking The 17th Amendment: An Old Idea Gets Fresh Opposition

Multiple GOP politicians and pundits are calling once again for the repealing of the 17th Amendment.

The 17th Amendment reads as:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

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.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Repealing this Amendment would take the election of Senators away from the people and return it to the State Legislatures. They claim it's to restore power to the State.

The truth of the matter is, they want to gerrymander the Senate, much like they did the House of Representatives.

The Senate will be populated by people hand-picked by the Representatives that redrew district lines to steal their seats.

I can't wait to see this blow up in their faces.

[Greenday]

How about term limits on the House of Reps? It's ridiculous to see these lifers in there.

[HYHYBT]

Why is that ridiculous?

[Greenday]

Because these people get in on name recognition alone after a certain point instead of accomplishments or goals. My state has had congressmen elected over and over and over. And some of these guys haven't done any noticeable crap in many years. So why do they these people just sitting there and collect a paycheck get in over someone who works hard and might actually be useful? Because everyone knows who the incumbent is.

[s_stabeler]

The idea behind term limits is to ensure that people never fossilize in their position, for want of a better word. (basically, they don't hold their position for so long that they become synonymous with the position)

basically, if you had term limits of, say, 3 terms, then Representatives could serve only 6 years- meaning that ( for example) a 2-term president would see a completely new House by the end of their second term from what it was at the beginning

Personally, I would set term limits as such:

House: 6 terms. ( it's 12 years, or 1 1/2 -3 presidents. Plenty of time to make an impact)
Senate: 3 terms. ( it's another 12 years...- again, plenty of time to make an impact)
President: 3 terms. Yes, I would extend the presidential term limit. Why? simple. In my experience, politicians start to get arrogant after 10 years in office, dangerously so after 12.

so by having politicians limited to 12 years in each position, it means that politicians would be forced to campaign for a different position every time they would be likely to get dangerously arrogant- forcing them to learn the ropes all over again.

[lordlundar]

The idea behind term limits is to ensure that people never fossilize in their position, for want of a better word. (basically, they don't hold their position for so long that they become synonymous with the position)

Well that might have been the identified explanation, it wasn't the reason. Term limits on the president was established after the Watergate scandal that got Nixon impeached. The term limit bill was established to prevent a dictatorship from happening which nearly did with Nixon.

[Kheldarson]

Well that might have been the identified explanation, it wasn't the reason. Term limits on the president was established after the Watergate scandal that got Nixon impeached. The term limit bill was established to prevent a dictatorship from happening which nearly did with Nixon.

Nope. It was passed after FDR died in office during WWII, leaving poor Truman to finish the war. FDR was, at that point, on his fourth term, the only president to serve more than two.

The fact that he died so suddenly and left us in such a crisis is what pushed the amendment through in 1951.

[Panacea]

Personally, I would set term limits as such:

Senate: 3 terms. ( it's another 12 years...- again, plenty of time to make an impact

18 years. Senate terms are 6 years: 6x3=18.

However, I'm fine with 3 Senate terms.

As for the OP: what the GOP fails to consider is that eventually the Democrats will have the power to gerrymander and the balance of power will eventually swing the other way. As usual, they are thinking short term, not long term.

It's a purely symbolic effort, for political points. It will never happen.

2/3rds of each House of Congress have to vote to pass the proposed amendment. That will never happen; the GOP doesn't have the votes to pass simple majority legislation much less 2/3rds. Then 3/4ths of the states have to vote to ratify the proposed Amendment. Again, it will never happen. The GOP doesn't control enough State Legislatures to do that.

No, this is purely symbolic, much like the 50 attempts to repeal Obamacare. The GOP gets to point at their "plan" to fix our dysfunctional government, which will rally their base while the rest of the country rolls their eyes.

[s_stabeler]

I'd say 2 terms, then. Because the point is that politicains tend to get arrogant when they've been elected for 12 years. By forcing them to run for a different position then, it keeps them on their toes.

[lordlundar]

Nope. It was passed after FDR died in office during WWII, leaving poor Truman to finish the war. FDR was, at that point, on his fourth term, the only president to serve more than two.

The fact that he died so suddenly and left us in such a crisis is what pushed the amendment through in 1951.

I stand corrected. Nixon tried to do an end run around it to stay in power after the fact.

[Kheldarson]

I stand corrected. Nixon tried to do an end run around it to stay in power after the fact.

What are you talking about? He didn't even complete his second term, let alone try for a third.

[Kara_CS]

As far as voting for Congress goes, the GOP is largely responsible for gerrymandering districts to essentially elect themselves anyway.

And yes, there should definitely be term limits set on Congressional seats. The problem with these Senators that have been in their seats for 20+ years is that they are still pushing bygone ideology and politics from an entire generation (or two) ago. We need fresh blood and fresh perspectives that change with the times.

[lordlundar]

What are you talking about? He didn't even complete his second term, let alone try for a third.

He wasn't aiming to "try for a third term". One of the tapes (recently revealed in the Discovery Channel Documentary "All the President's Men Revisited") was of him ordering the CIA to engage in political attacks against his opponents and if necessary physical attacks. Had Watergate not gone down Nixon's overall plan was to be "president for life" long before his second term was to finish. At the very least by then he was determined to be the only candidate running by that time because no one would run against him.

A lot of Americans have no idea just how close they were to duplicating what happened in Germany between the wars. Just instead of being fueled by fear of the Jews, it was fear of the Soviets.

[Panacea]

What are you talking about? He didn't even complete his second term, let alone try for a third.

Nixon may have wanted a repeal of the 22nd amendment, but he could not have run for a third term before his 2nd ran out because it takes YEARS to repeal a constitutional amendment.

He wasn't aiming to "try for a third term". One of the tapes (recently revealed in the Discovery Channel Documentary "All the President's Men Revisited") was of him ordering the CIA to engage in political attacks against his opponents and if necessary physical attacks. Had Watergate not gone down Nixon's overall plan was to be "president for life" long before his second term was to finish. At the very least by then he was determined to be the only candidate running by that time because no one would run against him.

A lot of Americans have no idea just how close they were to duplicating what happened in Germany between the wars. Just instead of being fueled by fear of the Jews, it was fear of the Soviets.

I think that's a lot of conspiracy theory non-sense. Unless Nixon was planning a coup, he could not have run for a third term because of the 22nd amendment. It would have taken years to get a repeal through both houses of Congress, then ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures. He would have been out of office a long time by then.

The only way Nixon could have become President for life is if the military had thrown in with him. With the country fighting a war in Vietnam that was increasingly unpopular, that would have flown like a fart in church. The rank and file soldiers of the draft would not have gone along with it. Any general that tried it would have found himself quickly in Leavenworth.

[mikoyan29]

I'm against term limits because it also limits us the voters. If there is a person we really like, we can't vote for him again because he has been term limited out. Another thing, by the time the politician learns how to get things done, he has to move on to other things. Because of that, I think it encourages more legislation written by people that shouldn't be writing legislation.

As for repealling the 17th Amendment...they've been trying that for a while and I don't think it will gain much traction.