Pennsylvania Rep. Scott Perry earlier this week supported a resolution that would repeal the 17th Amendment and strip American voters of their right to elect U.S. Senators.

The joint resolution, introduced by Texas Congressman Keith Self, aims to “restore the Founders’ original vision for the United States” and return the selection of senators to state legislatures.

“Our Founding Fathers designed the Senate to protect state sovereignty and act as a check on federal overreach. If senators are supposed to represent their states, then the states should choose them. Repealing the 17th Amendment will restore that constitutional balance and make the Senate more accountable to the people of Texas and every other state in the union,” Self said.

all 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 37 points 4 months ago

Repealing the 17th Amendment will restore that constitutional balance and make the Senate more accountable to the people of Texas and every other state in the union,

...That's what voting does you lying piece of shit. You just want permanent Republican control of the Senate, you never want to have a Democrat senator be able to exist in a "red" state which generally makes up the majority of states. Fucking asshole.

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 4 months ago

    Translation - why should all that donor money go to campaigns and advertising when it could be going to bribes to state legislators instead?

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago

    Uh oh, did the poll numbers for the Texas senate election send them into panic mode? Or do they want to pick someone other than Paxton because he's not sufficiently pliable?

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago

    I would like to revoke the senate. It’s anti-democracy.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago

    The 17th Amendment wasn't some progressive power grab. It was the system self-correcting after decades of obvious, documented corruption. Nine states had already moved effective to popular election through binding primaries before 1913.

  • source
  • 42 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 147 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (13 children)

    it cant be repealed, it must be a new amendment to nullify the 17th. like the 18th, prohibition, was nullified by the 21st.

    that will require:

    • 2/3 congress (both houses) must agree, (thats 288 representatives, and 67 senators)
    • then, 3/4 of the states need to agree (thats 38)

    this is all political theater

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 76 points 4 months ago

    Its Overton window work. Just like the roe v wade overturning, they are talking about the impossible now so they can you their base get used to the idea and in the long run make real pushes for it. The Rs have always been transparent if you listen to them. Horribly self centered that they are.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    it cant be repealed

    I mean, we'll see what the SCOTUS has to say

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    I can see the headlines already: "Roberts Court declares the Constitution unconstitutional"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

    They've already done that with the 14th amendment.

    Edited for crash out: I am Australian. I have never been to the US and never intend to go there. I should not know this much about your fucking politics. I know all of your supreme court justices' names while I couldn't name a single one from our High Court. I suppose it's my own fault for engaging with US political news so much, but on the other hand I do need to stay informed about what's happening there because your fascist regime is interfering in my country's politics as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    your fascist regime is interfering in my country’s politics as well.

    We absolutely are. But modern Australia was built as a colonial project. Both the US and Australia are an extension of that centuries old Anglo project to extract the wealth of the world.

    It's all one global fascist project, and the Australian oligarchs are more than happy to play along

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago*

    It's all one global fascist project, and the Australian oligarchs are more than happy to play along

    Gina Rinehart, Australia's richest person and owner huge donor and policy "consultant" to our rapidly-rising far right party One Nation, visited Mar-a-Lago last year and since then ON has risen rapidly in the polls and bots shilling the party have flooded social media. So yes, the oligarchs all over the world are part of the same fascist project.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago*

    yeah, we learn from you learn from they learn from us learn from it's all one big incestuous circle of evil.

    gotta look close to home, at your neighbors to find the good. i just found out one of mine has a Mystery Machine! Like from Scooby Doo! In take-it-to-a-show condition (because that is where i saw it). he didn't realize i recognized him from my local farmer's market because he was in Show Mode. it was cool.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago*

    Except enough Democrats might vote for it too. Their fighting against this cant be assumed. Somehow theres always just enough Dem votes for the republicans to get their way on key votes. Need 4? heres 5 Dem voters. Need 20? heres 22 Dem voters.
    It happens all the time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    I know you mean to say it can't be repealed by an Act of Congress, but the word "repeal" also applies to constitutional amendments. This is what the text of Amendment 21 said:

    Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

    Not "nullified". Repealed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 64 points 4 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 57 points 4 months ago

    The problem for Republicans is that senate races can't be gerrymandered. Sounds like this provision would solve that problem for them. You can just smell the desperation and fear.

  • source
  • [–] 54 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    uhhhh... dont the people of those states elect their own local senator? how the fuck does that equal federal overreach??

    overreach by representation? are they saying the problem in the united states is that we are over-represented?

    ohh right.. the fascism isnt even whispered anymore

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Repealing the 17th Amendment will ... make the Senate more accountable to the people of Texas

    You think not letting people vote will make senators more accountable?

    What kind of nonsense is this?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    It cracks me up that the cons have been able to paint liberals as being "elitist" based on aspiring to be better educated (see Santorum squealing that wanting everyone to have access to a college education is "elitist" for example).

    Meanwhile, they openly do nakedly extremely elitist things like this.

    Not to mention being positively giddy in their support for a billionaire like Donvict. It doesn't get much more elitist than that. SMH, the cons seem to delight in perverting the English language.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago
    1. Uneducated republicans don’t fundamentally understand civics, and think it’s a good idea because it empowers the Republican Party.
    2. Educated republicans think this is a good idea because it empowers the Republican Party.
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 4 months ago

    Well, if we're going to be thinking about the original vision, we'd better uncap the house as well. Having a couple thousand representatives in the house, each representing a much smaller group of voters, would certainly make the country run much more as intended.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 4 months ago

    How about, instead, we strip senators from congress and expand the housenof representatives to proportionally relfect the population.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    If he wants to amend the constitution, there’s a process for that. It would probably take two years, minimum. I wish him luck.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    the odds of a repeal of the 17th being ratified is exactly ZERO. maga nuts would have to fuck with so much at the state level in so many states, it's just not gonna happen. and that's on top of the fuckery needed over several election cycles to scam, cheat, and steal their way to super-majorities in congress to even get it sent to the states.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago

    Interesting that all the cosponsors are Republicans. The midterms have them quaking in their boots.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago

    This one is a distraction. It's intended to distract from the methods they're really counting on.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Another win for accelerationism. Man who thought the republicans would speedrun the destruction of the republic like they have. I thought it'd take more than just a few years.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

    ELI5 does this even matter? The state legislators are elected by the people, why does it matter if those reps are electing the federal senators or the the people directly? Its not like you're going to get a bunch of lords nominated arbitrarily by the KingPresident?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    State legislatures can be highly gerrymandered, and it would also eliminate primaries for the senate candidates which which means senators would functionally become whoever the party leadership wants per state.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 9 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] [S] 40 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    Republicans don't want to govern, they want to rule. (That and to protect literal child rapists.)

  • source
  • [–] [S] 29 points 4 months ago

    It makes Republicans nuts that they can't gerrymander statewide races. Repeal the 17th Amendment and the already gerrymandered GOP state houses get to appoint senators and deny Senate representation to huge portions of the population - exactly what the Republicans are aiming for.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago

    Sure we can do it this way if you want, but the 12th amendment goes with it. No more choosing your running mate. The vice president will be the runner up in the election, just like it used to be. You know “founder’s vision” and all that.

    Can you fucking IMAGINE the constant meltdowns if Trump’s VP was Kamala?

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago

    Good luck with that. At the very least, he's trying to do it the Constitutional way, via an Amendment to repeal the 17th Amendment. But considering the high hurdles set in front of that process, I doubt this is going anywhere.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    Scott Perry should be removed from his position.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Who is the "state" that would then elect senators?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Gee, do yoU guys thInk we'LL get thrOugh ThIs shit? it's Not likE itll change if midterms don't stop it.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Founding Daddy Issues.

  • source
  • 5 comments in c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] [S] 25 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

    Republicans don't want to govern, they want to rule. (That and to protect literal child rapists.)

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Aren’t states already choosing their senators?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 11 points 4 months ago

    17th Amendment:

    The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

    When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

    This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.[2]

  • source
  • parent