STORM2K

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/25/senator-end-blagojevich-type-senate-appointments/

On Sunday, Feingold, said he plans to introduce an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to end appointments to the Senate by governors. Feingold, who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, will advocate a special election instead.

“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," he said in a press release.

--------

Most proposed amendments are just political statements, but this one might have a chance. So, how does the possible '28th Amendment to the United States Constitution' sound to you?

EDIT: Hopefully this didn't come through as a political post, but as a news post.

That would have the effect of increasing democracy thus making it more dfficult to build political "machines".

Boy, that would really ensure Rod Blagojevich his place in the history books.

Still, I approve of the idea for the same reason Nimbus stated.

Having senators directly elected will go down as the largest single factor in the bankruptcy of the USA.

Senators were originally ALL appointed by governors. On the surface it seems pretty anti-democratic, right? However, having senators represent their STATES as opposed to the people in their states acted as a powerful weapon against unfunded mandates and federal power abuse. Now DC just pushes ridiculous overbearing legislation onto the states without any source of funding to back it up. This is how we get monstrosities like the Dept of Education, No Child Left Behind, amongst others.

OTOH, since senators are now directly elected, the appointment of mid-term replacements is anachronistic and this is probably a logical amendment.

I heard Blagojevich considered Oprah Winfrey for the post.

Literacy tests and the poll tax were banned, because they became a method of denying suffrage to African-Americans. But the original intent was that if one had to pay a certain small but real sum to vote, one was less likely to vote frivously, and if one could read, one was more likely to be informed on the issues.

I think I read that th sci-fi writer Heinlein proposed only military veteran's could vote, which would be fine by me. Because I'm a vet. Nothing exciting, no special forces or fighter pilot. Technician, not a warrior.


Almost half the adults in this country no longer pay income tax, and if we get to a point where more people receive from the government than pay in, we could get to the point where the majority votes themselves ever increasing benefits from the minority.

IIRC, in the United Kingdom, in some parts of the country, 70% of the economy is now directly controlled by the government. (Wales, for example) Government can't be as efficient as private industry, because there isn't a profit motive. But a UK system has good and bad points, on the one hand there are few holes in the safety net, very few people fall through. But the risk/reward for enterpreneurship is unfavorable. As one who likes to keep abreast on military strategy and the such, I am aware that one price of a large cradle to grave welfare state like the UK is the military is terribly underfunded. (Google "Royal Navy Utility Today Compared With 20 Years Ago")

The UK could not counter a Malvinas/Falklands invasion now.

Anyway, since popular elections for Senators doesn't look like it is going away soon, a special general election seems more immune to abuse than gubernatorial appointments.

Ed Mahmoud wrote:The UK could not counter a Malvinas/Falklands invasion now.

Don't tell the Argentines that !

I was tempted to just post "Las Malvinas es Ingles!" but it's probably too political...

As for the actual point of the post, I can't see this amendment passing.

Might be possible to get it past the House and Senate but the needed 38 States?-not likely.

Steve