Bad Zell
By Jim Dallas
Atrios expresses bewilderment over Zell Miller's support for repealing the 17th (Direct Election of Senators) Amendment.
(Off the Kuff talked about this recently, also).
It's really pretty simple:
Miller, who is retiring in January, was first appointed to his post in 2000 after the death of Paul Coverdell. He said Wednesday that rescinding the 17th Amendment, which declared that senators should be elected, would increase the power of state governments and reduce the influence of Washington special interests.
Miller, who knows a lot about Washington special interests, is essentially saying that the Senate should be the toy of special interests in Austin, Atlanta, and Sacramento. It's saying that Tom Craddick ought to call the shots, not "Washington special interests" like the AARP and the Sierra Club. That's why Tom DeLay likes this idea.
Miller, who knows a lot about being a partisan hack (for the other party), is saying that state politics should revolve entirely around who is gonna support which party's special interest Senator. Suppose you live in Jack Stick's district, and you like Jack Stick and want to vote for him - but you can't, because he'd vote to send John Cornyn (you'd prefer to be represented by Jim Turner) back to Washington. If you're a national-level Democrat, or Republican, that means you got to toe the same line when you vote for state representative and state senator (rather than having this degenerate luxury of being able to vote "the man" instead of the party at all levels of government).
Say buh-bye to swing voters.
Repealing the 17th Amendment has become the latest conservanaut fad because it furthers the cause of oligarchy, graft, and greed. Duh!
Now here's a challenge for the conservanauts - name one concrete example of how having direct election of senators has "corrupted" the country.
Posted by Jim Dallas at April 28, 2004 08:40 PM
| TrackBack
Folks, make no mistake about it. This is creeping fascism. Fascism does not occur overnight - it creeps up on you, and this is another stab at denying Americans the right to vote.
Zell and his ilk must suffer intense rebuke, or we may wake up tommorrow and discover we have no rights left.
"Thus, while there is national sovereignty, there is also state sovereignty. Power has been so divided and spread for one reason: to provide for and protect the highest sovereignty -- that of each individual citizen."
Haha, so by taking power away from citizens, we'd be protecting citizens.
That's goofy.
I’m curious on how this would work, or how it used to work. Did the state legislatures vote on various candidates, or did they nominate various candidates, interview them, hold hearing like a judicial nominee. Do both houses of a state legislature have to agree on someone? Then does the Gov have to approve? I imagine this would take some time to do. When would this happen for example here in Texas. At the start of an election year? Here in Texas the legislature can only meet for a certain amount of time on odd numbered years. Would this require a special session to appoint a Senator? If so, what if the Gov does not call a special session? I know I posed a lot of hypothetical questions, but I would like to get some ideas on how the process would go.
