Sounds great to me!

could this work?

I would agree with this if Senators were still tasked with representing the will of the state governments like originally intended. Now that it's a vote directly by the people then in my opinion only the people should be allowed to recall, not the state government.

AgBQ-00 said:

---

could this work?

---

no

AtticusMatlock said:

---

I would agree with this if Senators were still tasked with representing the will of the state governments like originally intended. Now that it's a vote directly by the people then in my opinion only the people should be allowed to recall, not the state government.

---

I'm torn. Largely because I don't give the same respect to amendments beyond the BoR. I see the 17th on par with the 18th, except that it isn't been repealed yet. So part of me says the constitution must rule, while another part of me figures that if the Uniparty has gutted the 10th then I have no issue similarly gutting the 17th.

BMX Bandit said:

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

could this work?

---

no

---

It might. The 17th amendment only affected how Senators are elected and the mechanism for how they are replaced. There is no case or even mechanism for the recall of Representatives or of Senators to my knowledge anywhere in the country. This isn't proscribed anywhere that I'm aware of either. It's possible. However I'm not sure it's a good idea. It's an issue rife for the potential abuse.

Brutal Puffin said:

---

javajaws said:

---

The 17th is an abomination. I'd like to see this pass and then go through the courts with Cornyn as its first test subject.

---

Yes it is. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing by keeping Senators moored to their state legislatures, and thus closer to the people states they represent.

---

fify

Work around? We should all pause at the idea of a legislator trying a work around an amendment.

The USSC hasn't explicitly said such a provision is unlawful, but the recall power was debated and rejected when The Constitution was debated.

aezmvp said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

could this work?

---

no

---

It might. The 17th amendment only affected how Senators are elected and the mechanism for how they are replaced. There is no case or even mechanism for the recall of Representatives or of Senators to my knowledge anywhere in the country. This isn't proscribed anywhere that I'm aware of either. It's possible. However I'm not sure it's a good idea. It's an issue rife for the potential abuse.

---

The tell is with the way a vacancy is replaced. The 17th changed the standard process for becoming a senator but didn't touch the backfill process. (Thus the discussions about vacancies due to cabinet appointments and how it's different between house and senate.) So the 17th only subverted the front door while not rewiring the whole thing. I could see the case that 17th didn't eliminate the state's apparatus to recall their senators and send alternatives until the next election.

Of course, there is likely political blowback for replacing a popularly elected senator with an appointed one, so a state politician would need to calculate wisely, but I'd like to see this succeed!

AgBQ-00 said:

---

could this work?

---

Don't think so, at first blush. Supremacy Clause for one thing.

TA-OP said:

---

Work around? We should all pause at the idea of a legislator trying a work around an amendment.

---

That rubicon was crossed over 200 years ago with "interstate commerce" castrating the 10th amendment. Now it's a matter of what lawyers can justify and courts let them get away with.

Recalling senators and representatives was a part of the Articles of Confederation. It was removed by the framers purposefully with our current constitution. It would require an Amendment to grant recall powers to the states again.

Wait. Who votes for the state legislature in Texas? Are they not representatives of the people? Therefore, if x% of them want a Senator recalled, then so be it. The state reps that represent the people should be able to perform duties that the state legislature doesn't align with how the state wants things done.

If we have a dumbass Senator that is siding with liberals at a 50/50 clip and our legislature is 75% Republicans that don't like how he is voting, then bring his butt back to the state and let him know he is no longer going to be representing us.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Brutal Puffin said:

---

javajaws said:

---

The 17th is an abomination. I'd like to see this pass and then go through the courts with Cornyn as its first test subject.

---

Yes it is. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing by keeping Senators moored to their state legislatures, and thus closer to the people states they represent.

---

fify

---

I'll split the difference with you. I think Senators today remove themselves from their constituents very quickly, especially after re-election. The problem is the 6 year terms. Combine that with hens like McConnell and Schumer running things and we are where we are. They skillfully manage their chicks and protect them from election harm.

Undermines a key role of the Senate to provide a moderating function on populism. The whole point of six year terms and staggered elections is to dampen political swings. Our Constitutional system is designed for stability - and that's good.

For better or worse our Senators were elected... We have a way of cleaning the Senate it is called elections..

doubledog said:

---

For better or worse our Senators were elected... We have a way of cleaning the Senate it is called elections..

---

The founding fathers were wiser than those who proposed subsequent amendments. The role of Senator was to represent the State's interests rather than the Population's interests.

So when the 17th was proposed the people said "hell yeah! More control to us! Great deal!" …but that's the problem. One chamber wasn't supposed to be for the people. This was supposed to be for the states.

So yes, there's a mechanism to replace senators in the same way as you can replace representatives… but that's actually the problem. …. But it's wasn't supposed to be the same.

(And I get it - if we want the 17th gone we should kill it with another amendment the way the 18th was killed - but pragmatically we all know that isn't going to happen because people don't vote themselves out of the drivers seat once they've seized the power)

Quote:

---

The role of Senator was to represent the State's interests rather than the Population's interests.

---

That was one of their roles. Another was to quell populist movements and whims. It was designed from the outset to have limited accountability.