2007-10-02 10:27:27 · 8 answers · asked by babegurlluvscash 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Ever try google?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
2007-10-02 10:30:23 · answer #1 · answered by It's the hair 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Oddly enough if you read the text of the constitution, you will see the Founders when discussing how senators are to "selected" forbade even discussing the changing of selecting senators. It is a very simple concept to understand, if one will take the time and be open minded. Our whole system is built around "checks and balances", I.e. Presidential veto, legislative override, judicial review .... While our founders might not have envisioned planes, trains and automobiles, they understood one thing very clearly, the flawed nature of man. So the Framers devised a very clever form of gov't., but it required an informed and engaged electorate, because in the late 1800's the average American was much more free. Obviously, women and minorities should have been allowed the vote. What I am referring to is how much the Fed. Govt. is in our daily lives. The 17th amend was a check and balance because the Senate represented the State, the House represented the People & the Pres a mix of the two.
2014-12-24 20:51:48 · answer #2 · answered by nervose 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People complain about the 17th Amendment because there are no checks and balances available to the states over federal power or Congress.
2007-10-02 10:43:43 · answer #3 · answered by staisil 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"All" it effectively did was to give the people a direct voice in the election of the Senators who represent their state. As for those who complain about a six-year term, I say look into this and understand the purpose of the Senate. It is not in place to respond to every whim of Political Correctness as the House of Representatives is. With the proven fickleness of the Electorate, someone has to see to it that the nation sails some sort of semi-straight course and not in circles.
My question is that if having a Federal legislative body apportioned by states rather than by population is legal, why is it illegal to have a State body so apportioned, as by County rather than population? There is a definite double standard involved here. If "One man, one vote" applies to the individual States, why does it not apply to the Federal government?
2007-10-02 10:43:17 · answer #4 · answered by Tom 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
i think its a good idea but i don't like the 6 year term. my old government teacher used to tell us that if we had a problem in our state then it would be wise to complain to one of our state representatives because they are elected every two years and would be more inclined to help for fear of losing the next election but senators aren't as likely to deal with the issue because they only come up for election every 6 years. so i don't have a problem with the people choosing who represents their state in the senate but i don't like the 6 year term. not sure if this is what you're looking for but i hope it helps.
2007-10-02 10:32:42 · answer #5 · answered by Bill W 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It affects us because we are able to vote for our representatives in Congress rather than having been appointed by state legislature as supposedly will of the people.
2007-10-02 13:33:41 · answer #6 · answered by Dave aka Spider Monkey 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Not much.
You would think that we've more involvement in the selection of our senators, but we only get to choose from the few that make it through the primaries.
2007-10-02 10:31:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
it means that an "uninformed public" will not have total say in both houses... it really is a necessary precaution....
2007-10-02 10:32:17 · answer #8 · answered by Agape 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋