Zell Miller:Legislatures Should Pick Senators

[bluedog]

oh rat man is at it again.............


Miller: Legislatures Should Pick Senators
23 minutes ago Add Politics - U. S. Congress to My Yahoo!


By JEFFREY McMURRAY, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Zell Miller, Georgia's maverick Democratic senator, says the nation ought to return to having senators appointed by legislatures rather than elected by voters.



snip

"The individuals are not so much at fault as the rotten and decaying foundation of what is no longer a republic," Miller said on the Senate floor. "It is the system that stinks. And it's only going to get worse because that perfect balance our brilliant Founding Fathers put in place in 1787 no longer exists."


The Constitution called for voters to directly elect members to the U.S. House but empowered state legislatures to pick senators. The aim was to create a bicameral Congress that sought to balance not only the influence of small and large states but also the influence of state and federal governments.


Miller said that balance was destroyed in 1913 with the ratification of the 17th Amendment. He has introduced a resolution, which he acknowledges has no chance of passage, to repeal the 17th Amendment and again let state legislatures pick senators.


Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., suggested Miller and others were treating the Constitution as a "rough draft" by proposing a series of recent amendments to require a balanced federal budget, define marriage and criminalize flag burning.


snip

Miller has ruffled the feathers of Democratic colleagues before. Though elected as a Democrat, he has endorsed President Bush (news - web sites) for re-election, sided with Republicans on virtually every key issue and written a best-selling book in which he accuses his party of being out of touch with Southern voters.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&u=/ap/20040428/ap_on_go_co/appointing_senators_1&printer=1
___


On the Net:


Sen. Miller: http://www.miller.senate.gov/

[Caution]

1. I'm truly speechless on this one. n/t

[Anjisan]

2. It's a good idea!

We have much more influence over our state legislators than we do over a Senator in Washington, 2,000 miles away.

[ursacorwin]

6. oddly,

i don't find this idea horrid. what it would do is shift the money flow (from pacs and corps etc) from a few individuals to hundreds, scattered all over america. while it would be problematic just now (which is why zell likes it) due to the heavy concentration of rethugs in some state legs., it would potentially give us back a voice in the shape of the senate. right now all we have is rich men who whore for the corps they own/who own them.

zell is out there, that's for sure.

[rumguy]

9. all it would do is create party bosses in each state

that would wield great power over the future of our country...

Senators would no longer have to appeal to the people, only to the political elites in each state...

This is a bad idea, from a grumpy old man who feels his relevance slipping away....

Just go gently into that good night Zell, you don't matter anymore...

[Anjisan]

10. You ALREADY have party bosses in each state

And they're a lot closer to you and the voters than a guy in Washington is.

[rumguy]

16. it would create backroom deals to decide who is senator

it would remove the voters from deciding...

and party bosses in each state are not necessarily closer to the voters...where do you get that idea? many are corrupt as all get out...

[terisel]

14. It is an attempt to create an elite ruling class.

No wonder Zell is not a real patriot. He wants to take away the right of individuals to vote. I guess he just doesn't like America and wants us to be one of those kingdoms like Saudi Arabia.

[Skidmore]

3. May I suggest to Zell that he might feel more at

home in Afghanistan. I'm sure he can catch a slow boat at the nearest pier.

[clonebot]

4. giving power back to the states?

geez zell, whats next - a confederacy?

[Anjisan]

11. geez zell, whats next - a confederacy?

What he's proposing IS in the Constitution. A confederacy isn't.

[MallRat]

17. If he and other conservatives are fans of "states' rights..."

...then why wasn't the Florida Supreme Court decision sufficient, in re Bush v. Gore?

I mean, what defenders of states' rights would possibly want to involve the US Supreme Court in an internal state matter, right?

The GOP Philosophy: "We're in favor of states' rights only when they favor us. But we're in favor of a strong Federal government only when we're in control of all three branches."

:mad:

-MR

[bobbieinok]

5. 17th amendment was a giant step forward for democracy

He and Scalia with the 'legislature picks the presidential electors' ought to have a big 'original words of the constitution' dance.

[bobbieinok]

8. let's remind all these dodoes about the preamble

IMO - all of the purposes of the constitution (including defense) require the greatest foundation of democracy possible.

The Constitution of the United States of America
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html

[MallRat]

7. And how many state legislatures are in GOP control now?

I'm guessing more than 50%, right?

Un-f'ing-believable.

:argh:

-MR

[bluedog]

15. this would mean a push for

a one party system am I correct...then slip quietly into a dictatorship.am I correct?

[xultar]

12. OK someone call the bus for Shady Pines Mental Hospital,

[CatWoman]

13. yeah, cause he knows no one is going to vote for his skank ass

[Salviati]

18. Can we kick him out of the party yet, PLEASE!