Gohmert: Fight Health Care Bill By Repealing Popular Election Of Senators

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) is calling for a strong re-assertion of states rights against Congress -- in the form of a Constitutional amendment to eliminate the direct popular election of Senators, and go back to the pre-17th Amendment setup of state legislatures appointing them.

"Ever since the safeguard of State legislatures electing U.S. Senators was removed by the 17th Amendment in 1913, there has been no check or balance on the Federal power grab for the last 97 years," Gohmert said in a press release, calling for a constitutional convention of the states. "Article V requires a minimum of 34 states to request a Convention which in this case, would be an Amendment Convention for only ONE amendment."

As Dave Weigel points out, this setup would result in Democrats losing a few Senate seats under the current balance of power in the state legislatures. On the other hand, as Media Matters notes, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) could have never been elected under this system -- the Democratic legislature in Massachusetts would have selected a Democrat to fill the seat, and that would have been that.

It should also be noted that the pre-17th Amendment system was prone to quirks of the district-based systems for state legislatures, on those rare occasions when a state legislative election effectively became a referendum on the Senate seat. For example, Abraham Lincoln's Republicans won the popular vote in the 1858 Illinois legislative/Senate race, but Stephen Douglas's Democrats benefited from an outdated and badly apportioned district map that preserved their majority. Lincoln carried Illinois against Douglas in the presidential election two years later, in a statewide vote that was not dependent on districts.

[youtube]CqStgReNu8Y[/youtube]

We live in the age of Polycom. Why not just keep them here and make them telecommute?

While yer at it:
[...]

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

e.g., loss of accountability to the public, increased party control of officials (say goodbye to third parties), "nationalization" of local politics, etc.

And I don't see where "nationalization of local politics", as you put it, is bad thing. Senators are supposed to represent their state on the national platform. That's rather the point of the Senate.

I want the candidates for State Representative from my hometown in VT debating local zoning and school funding issues, not reciting talking points on Iran handed to them by the national party committees.

If you went this route you'd end up with Lame Duck senators serving a 6 year term when their party gets voted out of the state legislature. In those cases the Senator was not elected by the people or the legislature they are representing any more. At least now the people directly vote them into office.

If you went this route you'd end up with Lame Duck senators serving a 6 year term when their party gets voted out of the state legislature. In those cases the Senator was not elected by the people or the legislature they are representing any more. At least now the people directly vote them into office.