How Would You Change Washington DC?

[PreachTony]

Members of the US Congress represent their states at the national level. They fight for money and appropriations for their state. Could you list some areas where the states were stripped of their representation with the 17th amendment?

The people had representation through the House of Representatives. The Senate was intended to be a national-level representative body for the individual state governments. No individual citizen was stripped of representation by the institution of the 17th Amendment. The state governments, though, did lose their representation.

Again, what representation was lost when the 17th amendment was passed? If I were a sitting senator when the amendment was ratified, would I suddenly have a shift in my mission to represent my state?

See my answer above. The state governments lost their representation. The bicameral design of the American congress was meant to be similar in nature to the Parliament, which has a House of Lords and a House of Commons. Since the US does not have titles of lordship or nobility, we developed a system by which the citizens of a state and the government of a state both had representation.

Originally the federal government was supposed to be quite weak. The vast majority of governance was supposed to take place at the state level. Once the state governments lost their representation at the federal level, they were rendered greatly weakened. That's a fact that's hard to argue.

Potentially, yes, a sitting Senator would have to reconsider their policy stance. There is a difference when representing the state government and its needs versus representing the state's citizenry and its needs.

Or term limits would remove an effective legislator from representing their state. Just when they learn the ropes of how things are done in D.C., or when they finally chair that important committee, an arbitrary limit forbids them from doing their job.

Yes, this is a possible argument. The truth is, though, that we now have an entire class of career politicians who would rather be in office than execute the duties of that office. Consider the 2-year term House of Representatives. Since it often takes a year to mount a successful campaign, the elected official gets only about a year to do anything meaningful. This type of wastefulness has to change.

 

[CatMommy]

Term limits for the Legislative branch. And for the Judicial as well since there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the US Supreme Court jurists to sit for life as they do now.

 

[InTheLight]

The state governments, though, did lose their representation.
The state governments lost their representation.
Once the state governments lost their representation at the federal level, they were rendered greatly weakened. That's a fact that's hard to argue.

What did senators do to represent their state before the 17th amendment was passed? What representation did they lose afterwards?

Potentially, yes, a sitting Senator would have to reconsider their policy stance. There is a difference when representing the state government and its needs versus representing the state's citizenry and its needs.

The state is the citizenry. I'm not seeing the difference. What is the difference?

 

[Salty]

Term limits for the ...for the Judicial as well since there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the US Supreme Court jurists to sit for life as they do now.

Article III Section 1
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,

 

[PreachTony]

What did senators do to represent their state before the 17th amendment was passed? What representation did they lose afterwards?

The state is the citizenry. I'm not seeing the difference. What is the difference?

Senators did not represent their state citizenry. They represented their state government.

The original intention of the founders was to have a nation comprised of states wherein the state's population and the state's government were represented at the national level. The state governments were meant to be the level at which 90% of governance took place, with the federal government only holding 10% of the power in peace time. Naturally, at times of war the federal government would be stronger in an effort to direct a more unified front, but in times of peace, the states were meant to be more powerful than the federal government.

That is certainly no longer the case, and a big reason for that is the fact that the state governments are now powerless in Washington.

 

[InTheLight]

Senators did not represent their state citizenry. They represented their state government.

The original intention of the founders was to have a nation comprised of states wherein the state's population and the state's government were represented at the national level. The state governments were meant to be the level at which 90% of governance took place, with the federal government only holding 10% of the power in peace time. Naturally, at times of war the federal government would be stronger in an effort to direct a more unified front, but in times of peace, the states were meant to be more powerful than the federal government.

That is certainly no longer the case, and a big reason for that is the fact that the state governments are now powerless in Washington.

You keep repeating the same things, and are not giving specifics.

What did senators do to represent their state before the 17th amendment was passed? What representation did they lose afterwards?

 

[PreachTony]

You keep repeating the same things, and are not giving specifics.

What did senators do to represent their state before the 17th amendment was passed? What representation did they lose afterwards?

What kind of answer are you looking for, ITL? I've already told you that Senators represented their state governments prior to the 17th Amendment. I'd be willing to bet that the political game was played basically the same way prior to the amendment as after, only the actual people being represented had changed.

The state, when speaking in terms solely of the citizenry, lost no representation in the 17th Amendment. In fact, they gained a new chamber of congress. But the state, speaking in terms of state legislature, lost all of their federal level representation.

 

[CatMommy]

Article III Section 1
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,

Thank you. As I said, nothing there that decrees they sit for life.

 

[Salty]

Thank you. As I said, nothing there that decrees they sit for life.

Then what else does the Constitution mean?

They are appointed for life unless impeached or retire.

 

[CatMommy]

Then what else does the Constitution mean?

They are appointed for life unless impeached or retire.

Can a federal judge be fired?
Justices and judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution (Supreme Court justices, appellate and district court judges, and Court of International Trade judges) serve "during good behavior." That means they may keep their jobs unless Congress decides to remove them through a lengthy process called impeachmentand conviction. Congress has found it necessary to use this process only a few times in the history of our country. From a practical standpoint, almost all of these judges hold office for as long as they wish. Article III also prohibits lowering the salaries of federal judges "during their continuance in office." Bankruptcy judges, in contrast, may be removed from office by circuit judicial councils, and magistrate judges may be removed by the district judges of the magistrate judge's circuit. Bankruptcy judges and magistrate judges don’t have the same protections (lifetime appointment and no reduction in salary) as judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution.

 

[Salty]

Can a federal judge be fired?
Justices and judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution (Supreme Court justices, appellate and district court judges, and Court of International Trade judges) serve "during good behavior." That means they may keep their jobs unless Congress decides to remove them through a lengthy process called impeachmentand conviction. Congress has found it necessary to use this process only a few times in the history of our country. From a practical standpoint, almost all of these judges hold office for as long as they wish. Article III also prohibits lowering the salaries of federal judges "during their continuance in office." Bankruptcy judges, in contrast, may be removed from office by circuit judicial councils, and magistrate judges may be removed by the district judges of the magistrate judge's circuit. Bankruptcy judges and magistrate judges don’t have the same protections (lifetime appointment and no reduction in salary) as judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution.

Isn't that what I said in one sentence?

They are appointed for life unless impeached or retire.