S.J.Res.7 - A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to the election of Senators.

view all titles (1)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to the election of Senators. as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

  • Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • sillybloke 02/05/2009 2:54pm

    This isn’t a term limit amendment, though I agree there should be one for Congress, this is an amendment so that instead of the governor of a state appointing a senator where there is a vacancy, an election is held.

    Considering the recent appointing of another Republican (Gregg from NH) to Obamas cabinet and the possibility of gaining a supermajority as a resuly, I agree with the amendment. Even though the gov of NH has promised to appoint another Republican and Gregg wished as much too, the people of NH WILL NOT vote for this official. There is the still the notion of appointing an “easily defeatable” Republican so the chair will go to a Dem in 2010. I vote “aye”

  • LouisW 02/07/2009 5:45am

    Due to the importance of the duties of the Congressional Upper House such as the Advice/Consent and Impeachment Clauses, it is important that a state not be deprived of Senate representation. Since 1913, states have been able to choose whether to elect a new Senator or have the Governor appoint one when a vacancy occurs. It has worked well for the last 96 years. The recent circus involving Illinois is the exception that proves the rule.

  • kenj0418 02/11/2009 4:48pm

    Lets not go amending the Constitution just because of one crooked Governor from Illinois (is that redundant). Just keep letting each state decide how to fill their Senate vacancies. Note to Illinois: You probably want to do it by elections, since you suck at picking Governors.

  • revolutionrising 02/11/2009 5:05pm

    How about we repeal the 17th amendment and restore true republicanism?

  • Comm_reply
    kenj0418 02/28/2009 7:00pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    You mean have the state legislatures pick the Senator’s? With no election at all?

    I’m not sure if you are just aren’t understanding the 17th amendment and what the original method of selecting Senators was, if you are proposing the exact opposite of this proposed amendment to make a point, or if you are seriously proposing taking away the right of people to directly elect their Senators.

    Regardless — I don’t think your idea’s going to go very far.

  • Comm_reply
    CNerd2025 03/14/2009 2:06pm

    I support election of senators by the legislatures. I think it was a grave mistake to force direct election. The people are already adequately represented by the House of Representatives; in a federal republic the states should be represented, too, as individual entities. In the pre-17th-Amendment days, state legislatures could “instruct” their senators how to vote on bills, but they can no longer do this. I think the results have been erosion of state power at the expense of Federal power and even more corruption than before. What’s the worst that could happen? People might actually have a little more incentive to vote for state legislators.

  • Comm_reply
    jess 07/15/2009 8:06am

    I agree. Senators used to be more accountable to their respective states. As it is now, states actually pay lobbyists to go to DC!

  • Comm_reply
    genericlifeform 08/23/2009 6:29pm

    Do you mean true federalism? IE, the state legislature elects the senators, as it was in many states before the 17th amendment? If so, I can certainly see the wisdom in that.

    (I don’t mean to be a nit-picker, I just want to make sure I understand)

  • dk1028 02/18/2009 12:14pm

    I think this should be left to each of the individual states. I am for more of the decisions being made at the local and state level. I do however believe that each state should hold some type of election with regard to each situation.

  • rj32 03/06/2009 5:58am

    On the one hand people should be represented by the people. Still I can see a few reasons why the original amendment was written. In matters of war or civil disorder an election would be far too difficult, look at other countries around the world where they have polling issues. If a representative were assassinated to stop a vote the time required to hold an election could effectively sway the decision. The issue of urgency would probably suffer under this amendment. On the positive side, that extra time allows the people to evaluate candidates. I suppose it’s really more a reactionary measure to make sure each state has a bare minimum standard that prevents corruption or illegitimate representation.

  • Comm_reply
    CNerd2025 08/05/2009 7:01am

    The foremost reason the founders had legislators elect their senators was to give states a direct voice in the Federal government and to prevent mob rule. During the “progressive era,” people believed “the only problems with democracy can be solved with more democracy,” a wholly absurd but tempting idea. Thus, to achieve that goal, we got the income tax, direct election of senators and prohibition. They also gave us women’s suffrage, the only bright spot from those times. The result is a massive central government that disrespects the states and the citizens.

  • SilkWhispers 03/12/2009 3:54am

    A Special Election by any other name…..

    Already exists in political vernacular.

    Thanks to the antics of the election just passed, was beyond amazed to discover this was not already status quo. =)

  • john2000 03/18/2009 10:50pm

    If an elected person vacates a seat to take another job, the seat should be vacated until the next regular election for that seat. In the rare cases of death or total incapacitation, the should be special election in cases where there is still 1 1/2 years until next scheduled.

  • slinkymaster 03/24/2009 9:59am

    Considering the near impossibility of throwing incumbents out of office, they all should be elected first. Not having a senator for 2 years is a small consequence to pay to not have an establishment bureaucrat anointed to one of the highest positions in the country for the next 30 years.

  • ronbar87 03/25/2009 8:16pm

    I think that all senators should be elected by the people they represent. However, in the case of a sudden vacancy, due to the time involved in conducting a proper election, I think one should be appointed by the governor of that state. But, only from people nominated by the state legislature, preventing the type scandal, we saw in Illinois.

  • xaajjaax 04/18/2009 11:06am

    Nay. Senators appointed by governors? What an ugly precedent. Let each state decide for itself or require that they be elected by the populace or state legislature.

  • thecat 05/06/2009 7:39pm

    Here’s one for you, Illinois.

  • americanmuscle 07/29/2009 7:20pm

    I don’t think that this requires an amendmant to the Constitution. I think it is bad policy to just go and change the Constitution for this one exception. Each individual state should review their laws and change them accordingly.

  • FallenMorgan 08/13/2009 8:15pm

    The states should change their laws if they feel it necessary, and I personally think the 17th Amendment should be repealed. It throws off the whole balance intended by the original system.

  • Goodtimes22 09/08/2009 5:18am

    I’m with FallenMorgan, the actual state now has 0% representation on any policies or laws. I’m a little tired of hearing that states are given “unfunded mandates” and have the state legislators elect the Senators would correct that. It would also take back power from the feds and transfer it to the states.

  • Curly 09/11/2009 11:46am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    So what keeps a crook like Blago from having his mob friends knock off a senator so he can put his own people in the senate.

    Yes I’d say let the people decide.

  • ItsChris631 09/26/2009 9:28am

    Repeal the 17th Amendment altogether. Give the state governments their deserved representation in the Senate. Restore the REPUBLIC! America is not a Democracy!

  • Comm_reply
    HellfirePreacherman 10/01/2009 12:16pm

    The House of Representatives was meant to be the direct representative of the people in the U.S. government, the Senate is supposed to represent the prospective sovreign state governments. It should not be up to the people to elect their senators, but up to the state governments. This is wwhat our forefathers envisioned when they framed the constitution, they did not want direct democracy on the federal level. The Federal government is supposed to be an agent of the states, not the other way around.

  • msouthard 10/06/2009 6:10am

    It’s not a terrible idea for an amendment, but I’m concerned about two things. First, under this measure, states would be without representation while setting up an election, which could disrupt the entire political process in the Senate in the meanwhile, especially with the last decade’s abuses of the filibuster. Second, holding spontaneous elections is EXPENSIVE. If you’re going to mandate special elections, the federal government needs to help fund the process, because many of our states are already struggling to get along.

  • Constitutionalist1 10/25/2009 11:53am

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I think we need to return to the original policy of the states Governor choosing the Senator. They then go through the checks and balances to make sure they are eligible for the job. This makes the Senator a true voice for the state and not for the lobbyists.

  • FallenMorgan 11/08/2009 10:13am

    Well, America certainly is going down the tubes now, isn’t it?

  • Senate101 02/21/2010 5:08am

    @HellFirePreacherman Im sorry but I 100% disagree. We should be able to choose our government because most of our taxpayer is going TO the government. So we do have the right to choose our government, it’s also in the Consitution. AND if we didn’t choose it, every single nomination would probably end up like how my state’s governor did: Rod Blageovich.

  • Senate101 02/21/2010 5:09am

    @Curly I wrote what I said, then read yours. Its basically the same! It was an ebarrasment to live in Illinois at the time…
    the country looked DOWNNN at us :(

  • Spam Comment

Vote on This Bill

85% Users Support Bill

889 in favor / 154 opposed

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments