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.
In effect, it means that Senators shifted from being elected by each state's legislature to being voted on by the state as a whole. Sounds great right? Not so right. In fact, I think this is possibly the worst thing to ever happen to the constitution.
This guy brought up some interesting facts I didn't know about, but it all sounds like the government was functioning the way it was supposed to up until 1913. The idea of it all just makes more sense. The House was supposed to decide what the government should do and the Senate would essentially decide if they had the power to do that in the first place.
If you think about it, say you have 10 congressmen. 6 are against recreational marijuana, 4 are for it. 8 of them already have their own state legislature enforcing their own laws. If those 10 congressmen were in the house you would expect them to pass a law banning marijuana. On the other hand if those 10 congressmen were in the senate, who had to pay attention to their states laws, you would expect a majority to want to keep the federal government out of their business.
Another interesting fact is that it is the Senate, not the House, that approves of supreme court justices. Wouldn't it have been wise to re-examine that function of the senate? Especially considering the near unlimited power an activist judge can have (see 10th amendment blog)? Instead what we are left with is a Supreme Court that is more concerned with legislating their opinions than caring about the history of the country and letting people be ruled by their home states.
No comments:
Post a Comment