Republican 1st District Congressional candidates Raul Labrador and Vaughn Ward both support a move to abolish the right of citizens to elect their U.S. Senators through repeal of the 17th amendment. They would rather the state legislature choose the U.S. senators.
The amendment was historically the product of unrest among citizens who were unhappy with state politicos appointing their own party hacks instead of allowing the citizens to vote directly for senators.
The 17th amendment ultimately passed Congress in 1913 and was introduced in 1911 by Senator Joseph L. Bristow of Kansas and, supported by Senator William Borah of Idaho, himself a product of direct election.
Where did you get your information that Raul Labrador and Vaughn Ward take this view. I'm a bit surprised anyone in the 21st Century running for office would state such a view. I was leaning toward voting for Labrador, but due to a lot of factors of late, I think I'll be another Republican voting for Minnick in November.
ReplyDeleteThis came from two sources: First was the results of a Idaho Tea Party Survey and the second source was from a debate/interview of Labrador and Ward on Idaho Public TV show IDAHO REPORTS. You can pull up the IDAHO REPORTS show from the IPTV website. I caught the show on Sunday Morning
ReplyDeletePaul
OK, the original intent of Senators appointed by state legislatures was to insure balance between the rights of the States and the Federal government. Abuses of the appointments in the nineteenth century resulted in the passage of the seventeenth amendment and was intended to avoid cronyism and corruption of the system.
ReplyDeleteIn your article ahead of this one regarding Urban Renewal the citizenry are lambasted for apathy in the local politics of Caldwell, but the same apathy has resulted in a system nationwide where Senators have begun to vote against the will of their constituents. The result is an unprecedented power grab by the Federal government, which shows a total disregard for regions and locals, with actions taken diametrically against the outline of the Constitution itself.
Unless you are a died in wool democrat this is a concern to people who belive in self rule against the complete power of a soviet style politburo over our lives.
The system has shown itself corrupt in the intent of the founders of the nation in either case. So, does the guardian consider that the rights of individuals and State are important or should an all powerful central government replace the entire system, a direction we seem to be heading to. What's your solution?
In regard to the commentor, who is republican but will again vote for Minnick I can only say "yeah, right." In this current era of government conquest of our lives, to call yourself a democrat at all is suspect. Minnick plays the game of good, moderate, democrat, with balance. His game, is a juicy crap sandwich, and if he didn't have the eggshells of a constituency to walk gingerly around he would be a full bore hard left representative of the Federal government. While placating Idaho voters on obvious votes that would be political suicide he has voted straight down the party line in areas that are not so apparent. A wolf in sheeps clothing.
lol. it looks like someone is full of fear, fear from the big bad Federal Government. too often the local government is overlooked for it's strong grip over its citizens. it's so easy to blame the FEDS. lol.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution's principals are solid, but changes of course have been made. one can only say "the intent of the founders of the nation" so much, before they are laughed at. it's just your opinion sir.
can anyone remember the three-fifths compromise? how about not allowing women the right to vote? i'm glad there have been changes to the Constitution. i trust the voters to directly elect senators in Idaho better than I trust this one-sided legislature. come on, its common sense.
enjoy drinking your tea, bagger.
kris