Martinez Resignation Prompts Debate Over Appointments

Reader Comments
Back to article

the people in washington are not blame for where we are now. we the people are only worrid of our own little world. so half truths are what we listen to and in our own minds form a delusion that is not a reality.the politicions go with the flow to enhance and secure their future and standing. the politicions ,the lobbiest.(be they local, national, international, city ,state or national)lobbiest of all forms . the use of half truths by all of this forms is what has gotten us where we are . we the american folk can not expect a goverment to run without our imput or knoledge and expect it to serve us. may the power be with you

jmc of WI 6:43PM November 20, 2009

The well intentioned 17th Amendment was flawed. It was intended to give the electing of Senators directly to the people, which it did; however, it did not address replacing a Senator who died or otherwise did not finish his term. Thus, the provision in the Constitution remained as written. It made sense for the governor to appoint a replacement when the Senator was elected by the state legislature, but it does not make sense when the people elect the Senator directly. So, option one, repeal 17th Amendment, which was logically argued for by dte of FL, or a new Amendment to require a special election and keep it in the hands of the people, also a logical, albeit more expensive, course of action.

DW of LA 5:29PM August 19, 2009

Senators are supposed to be elected by the state legislatures (the 17th Amendment changed that) and if they were elected by the state legislatures, they'd be more willing to fight unfunded mandates and we might not have the confirmation circuses that we currently have because Senators are appealing to voter special interest groups. If you want to fix the Senate, repeal the 17th Amendment and allow governors to cast the tie-breaking vote if the two houses of a state legislature can't agree (one of the reasons the 17th Amendment was passed was because of that sort of deadlock). It would be much easier to require state legislatures to elect a new Senator than to demand that states carry out expensive special elections.

John of NJ 8:03AM August 19, 2009

"Opponents of the constitutional amendment, which needs two-thirds support in Congress to pass..."
You left out the part where it then has to go to the states for ratification. You could leave some of your readers with a false impression.

dte of FL 6:59AM August 19, 2009

The most obvious solution to this ongoing mess is outright repeal the 17th Amendment itself. Repeal would return us to something a lot closer to true federalism (and limited government by design) by allowing the several state legislatures - and their unique interests - to be represented in the national government. Rather than continue to muck around with the Progressive view of the modern (post-1913) Senate, our republic would be far better served by returning to the Framers' original intent (separation of powers, one person one vote, checks and balances, etc.).
http://www.restorefederalism.org

Restore Federalism of GA 11:19PM August 18, 2009

when he's running for the seat anyway, he shouldn't be appointing anyone. This is the point. Governors should not appoint Senators. Governors are for local issues.
Senators are for national issues. No sense for the tail to wag the dog in these instances.

Muser of NM 4:19PM August 18, 2009