The blue slip process has been a part of the Senate’s judicial nomination procedure since at least 1917. When a President nominates an individual for a U.S. circuit or district court judgeship, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee sends a blue slip —a form colored blue— to the two Senators representing the nominee’s home state. This form allows the Senators to express their opinions about the nominee.
Positive Response: If a home-state Senator has no objections, they return the blue slip with a positive response, indicating support for the nominee. Negative Response or Withholding: If a Senator objects, they may either return the slip with a negative response or choose not to return it at all. In both cases, this is treated as a lack of support for the nominee, which halts the nomination process.
JD Vance notes this process is being used to manipulate the appointments of Judges in leftist states. This creates a dual justice system; one of the core issues within our extremely divided nation.
[SOURCE]
JD Vance is not wrong. However, as with all things corrupted within the state of our Republic, if the blue slip process is removed the next leftist President can corrupt the judiciary within Republican states.
Of course, all of this is an outcome of the 17th Amendment, which stopped the state legislatures from having control over their senators. Under the original constitutional framework, the Senate was designed to represent the interests of the state, as the Senators were appointed by state legislature, not popular votes. The Sea Island assembly destroyed this cornerstone when they triggered the 17th Amendment.
Repeal the 17th Amendment, and just about everything in federal government changes.
Machiavelli said, “It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.” A prescient and oft repeated quote that is pertinent to the situation.
When our founders created the system of government for our constitutional republic, they built in layers of protection from federal control over the lives of people in the states. Over time, those protections have been eroded as the federal bureaucracy has seized power. One of the biggest changes that led to the creation of the permanent political class was the 17th Amendment.
Our founders created a system where Senators were appointed by the state legislatures. In this original system, the Senate was bound by obligation to look out for the best interests of their specific states. Under the ‘advise and consent‘ rules of Senate confirmation for executive branch appointments, the intent was to ensure the presidential appointee -who would now carry out regulatory activity- would not undermine the independent position of the states.
The nucleus of corruption amid every element of the federal institutions of government is the United States Senate. The U.S. Senate, also known as the “upper chamber,” is the single most powerful elected element in modern federal government.
The Intelligence Branch is the most powerful branch of government. However, the U.S. Senate is the most powerful assembly of federally elected officials. We pretend the IC branch doesn’t exist; that’s part of our problem. At least we admit the Senate exists.
All other elected federal corruption is dependent on a corrupt and ineffective Senate. If we correct the problems with the Senate, and reconnect the representation within the chamber to the state-level legislative bodies, we will then see immediate change. However, there would be ZERO institutional allies in this effort.
When the 17th Amendment (direct voting for Senators) took the place of state appointments, the perspective of ‘advise and consent’ changed. The Senate was now in the position of ensuring the presidential appointee did not undermine the power of the permanent bureaucracy, which is the root of power for the upper-chamber.
Senate committees, Homeland Security, Judiciary, Intelligence, Armed Services, Foreign Relations, etc. now consists of members who carry an imbalanced level of power within government. The Senate now controls who will be in charge of executive branch agencies like the DOJ, DHS, FBI, CIA, ODNI, DoD, State Dept and NSA, from the position of their own power and control in Washington DC.
In essence, the 17th Amendment flipped the intent of the constitution from protecting the individual states to protecting the federal government.
Almost every source of federal issue: ex. spending, intervention and foreign assistance, conflict with the states, burdensome regulation, surveillance and spying on American citizens, the two-tiered justice system and the erosion of liberty & individual rights (see COVID examples), can be sourced back to the problem created by the 17th Amendment.
Because of the scale of their power, the Senate will not give up control easily; and every institution of society and government will actively work to block/stop We The People from taking back control of the upper chamber. Every entity from Wall Street to multinational corporations, big tech, banks, foreign governments and world organizations would align against us. When you truly understand the epicenter of the corruption, then you are able to see the tentacles extending from it.
It would be easy to say “repeal the 17th Amendment;“ it is ‘another kettle of fish’ entirely to walk through the process to make that happen. Yes, ultimately, we do need a full repeal of the 17th Amendment and return the selection of the senators from each state with a nomination and appointment process within the state legislature. [Common Explainer Here]
Seventeenth 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.” (link)
Prior to the 17th Amendment, there was significant state level corruption as business interests, and Senate candidates worked in power groups with party officials to attain the position. Politicians seeking Senate seats began campaigning for state legislative candidates in order to assemble support.
The state legislative races then became a process of influence amid powerful interests seeking to support their Senate candidate. Get the right people in the State legislature, and you can get the Senator appointed.
Those state-level entities, bankers, wealthy people of influence, later became the permanent K-Street lobbying groups once the 17th Amendment was ratified. In essence, they just shifted the location of their influence operation from the state to an office in Washington DC. [Those same power groups, albeit much larger, now write the physical legislation we see in congress.] Additionally, prior to the 17th Amendment, there were issues of vacancies in federal senate seats as state legislatures could not agree on an individual Senator.
The biggest issue following the passage of the 17th Amendment became Senators who were no longer representing the interests of their state. Instead, they were representing the interests of the power elite groups who were helping them fund the mechanisms of their re-election efforts.
A Senator only needs to run for re-election every six years. The 17th Amendment is the only amendment that changed the structure of the Congress, as it was written by the founders.
Over time, the Senate chamber itself began using their advice and consent authority to control the executive and judicial branch. The origination of a nomination now holds the question: “Can this person pass the Senate confirmation process?”
The Senate now abuses this power to ensure no one challenges them. Additionally, the Senate began using their oversight capacity to control elements within the executive branch and judicial branch. The full scope of that issue in modern form is OUTLINED HERE – which is the cornerstone of the Intelligence Branch of Government.
If we could repeal the 17th Amendment and return the selection to the state legislature, you can see where the background work of Tactical Civics and Extreme Federalism begin to take on importance. [NOTE: Within the repeal effort, we would need to include a recall process for states to reach out and yank back their Senator if they go astray; the ability to recall was missing in the original construct of the framers; it would need to be added.]
◊ PATH ONE is the primary platform of the presidential candidate…. a visible and emphasized mandate that includes: “vote me into office and you are voting to repeal the 17th Amendment “. This specific election issue would need to be the #1 priority of the candidate and spoken at every event.
This approach gives a presidential candidate the mandate to demand congress to act if he won the 2024 election. We need a warrior of epic strength, resolve and fortitude.
◊ PATH TWO is the parallel path built along with the election platform path and put into place in the event that Congress refused to accept the mandate.
Obviously, this would be an ugly battle. The second path is a convention of states.
The ‘convention of states‘ would need to be detailed, strategically planned, and the future schedule determined during the GOP convention preceding the November election (assuming the right candidate wins). That way, if Congress refuses to act on their own, within say the first 100 days of the new administration, the state legislatures will then assemble a convention for the singular and limited purpose of one action item: “repeal the 17th Amendment “. That’s it. Full Stop. Nothing more. Nothing else entertained.
There is a lot more to this, and a lot more to cover in discussion of this. However, this is the path that can resolve most of the issues we face with an out-of-control federal government. The shift in power would kneecap the Intelligence Branch of Government by re-instituting genuine oversight and control. A repeal of the 17th Amendment stops Senators from campaigning, needing to raise money and puts them directly into the accountability position as a steward for the interests of their state.
The people within each state would then have a mechanism to address any negative federal action by contacting their state legislative representative. In a worst-case scenario, a rogue Senator could be removed within days if they support any federal legislative activity that is not in alignment with the state interest. This approach also wipes out most of the power amid the Senate Majority Leader, as he/she could also be recalled by the state and would be less likely to work against the interests of the majority in the chamber.
The House of Representatives was created to be the voice of the people, ie, “The Peoples’ House.” However, the U.S. Senate was structurally created to be the place where state government had representation in the federal government decision-making. The 17th Amendment completely removed state representation, and we have been in an escalating battle over state’s rights ever since.
Overlay that DC structural issue with the fact that almost all of the bureaucracy created by this skewed DC system is now in place to defend itself from any outside effort to change it, and you get this UniParty problem that Donald Trump fully exposed.
Repeal the 17th Amendment, and we would see the most significant restoration of freedom, liberty and social balance in our lifetime.
Vance’s tweet is correct in premise but contains a basic grammatical error. Therefore, it is not serious.
The Branson case seems the ONLY option.
Brunson
I see the error & as a writer & editor, things like that bug me. However, it is probably just a typo; I wouldn’t read anything into it.
“The blue slip process ..since at least 1917. ”
I’m with Vance- I think it has outlived its purpose. There WAS a time when it was vital to have national unity, and blue-slip did cut through unnecessary bickering.
From that 1917 date, first we had WW1, then influenza & recession, plus a dying Woodrow Wilson. Then corrupt Harding who died in office in 1923. Coolidge fixed a lot, but then Hoover brought on the Great Depression.
Essentially things stayed bad in the ’30s, & then WW2 broke out. The late-40s improved, but then the Korean War to 1953.
For most of those years blue-slip helped parity for both sides, as attention was directed elsewhere.
Rarely have we experienced that same shared-purpose since. Or will we.
The blue-slip (‘quick-pick’) approach now, just ignores voter sentiment.
If we get real voting protections,than the democrats will not win a real election for 1k years.
The Dems already have their slogan to weaponize against any kind of voting reform, 17th Amendment revocation, Blue-Slip elimination, etc. They already have it tattooed into the brains of their mindless supporters:
“But, but, but… OUR DEMOCRACY!(TM)”
The US Senate is the most corrupt institution in the world and should never be allowed to dictate who can and can’t be appointed as prosecutors.
Lifetime appointments for politicized and corrupt federal judges has outlived its purpose.
The virtually impossible process to impeach a politicized and corrupt federal judge has also outlived its purpose.
The third branch of government is completely unaccountable.
Well, voting in Judges is a pretty bad idea. Reference Wisconsin.
Yes like school boards.
Thank you for this; sharing it as people need to remember the ultimate power to changes things lies in their hands.
This is the core of returning to the original vision and intent of the Founding Fathers – repeal the 17th Amendment puts the 3 legs of the stool of the Republic back where they need to be.
I fail to see how blue legislatures in blue states would make their Senators any different than they are now with the blue slip rule.
The point is that as it stands now, the Senators’ only loyalty is to K-Street and frankly, they sell themselves quite cheaply. They have no loyalty, whatsoever to their state, their governor, nor the people of their state. They are free to get into any corrupt shenanigans that they put their mind to and it doesn’t matter. Sure, they can theoretically be voted out of office, but incumbents posses an overwhelming advantage and so long as they obey their benefactors on K-Street, they will have piles of cash for their reelection efforts.
Without the 17th amendment, the Senators would actually need to produce positive results for their state, or be recalled and replaced by the State legislature and / or governor. While we certainly have a few governors who embrace lawlessness and criminals going free to terrorize the populous, this is a separate problem, altogether. This is a color revolution tactic which is aimed at destroying the Federal government, Capitalism and Western civilization.
Our Federalized school system (as run by the O’bama administration and its puppet Biden administration) has been the biggest advocate for the destruction of the Federal government Capitalism and Western civilization by the indoctrination of our children. Otherwise, the citizens in Oregon, California, Minnesota and etc. would not be supporting radical extremist State representatives who support the color revolution. Frankly, they don’t understand the chaos which will follow in the aftermath of such a revolution, or they wouldn’t be so enthusiastic with their support.
If Senators were loyal first to their state and fellow citizens, do you really think that Senator would rake in literally millions upon millions in donations from outside their state (and likely outside the country via money laundering)? When is the last time you saw a proposal presented in Congress to restrict or at least verify the validity of small dollar donations designed to fly under the radar of the FEC? Why not require Social Security numbers to be included with all political donations by individuals and those of the boards of corporations (even those who vote against)? Heck, why not simply limit (via a cap) the total donations of any Congressional campaign? After all, the political ads are as annoying as the Medicare enrollment ads thanks to the billions of $$$ at stake!
So, instead of US Senators being beholden to K-Street at the federal level, they’d judge be beholden to state legislators, who are themselves beholden to K-Street at the state-level.
…
I don’t see how this changes anything. Maybe things might get slightly less corrupt in the sense that there’s much more people to buy off. But they’re still largely bought off anyway.
The biggest error made by the proponents of the 17th amendment is that they forgot, well, no, they disregarded the Founders’ disdain for democracy, which the direct election of senators was a step toward. The Founders wanted an outlet for popular passions, and so the House of Representatives and its two year cycle. But they also, in their system of checks and balances, wanted a restraint against the unchecked passion that often afflicts the general populace and so they gave us the more deliberative body of the Senate, elected by the state legislatures, and its six year cycle.
But all of this is examining the symptoms while the disease runs unchecked. The fact is we are not people of the same temperament as those who founded this country: We are given to corruption on a scale that the Founders could not imagine. We are short-sighted, overly emotional, and not given to deliberation. We are intolerant of different views and psychological children who see disagreement as a provocation to violence. We cheer and celebrate death, both in the womb and without.
We are no longer the God-fearing people for whom this unique experiment in representative government was designed.
Constitutional amendments are the least of our problems.
J
A succinct and clear eyed assessment, Jonrilus of the most intractable reason why we have, as Lord Acton recognized, a Senate which has acquired nearly despotic powers and will not willingly relinquish them. Such powers, he said, are always accompanied by a corruption of morality.
Always. And that is something that we as voters with perceived power ourselves to remove such actors have no ability to correct.
It needed to be said, so thank you.
Orwell perhaps best defined the nature of such people who practice what I call “political taqyyia” in seeking election to the Senate (or House which often serves as a stepping stone…see Schiff for example).
If we could fix human nature as it has always been, we might have a chance.
If only…
“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives.
They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.
The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”
I think we do…
Also, our Founding Fathers were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to preserve our country. In today’s society, it’s all ME, ME, ME or I, I, I. The WE in WE, THE PEOPLE has been replaced. The proof in this pudding is the $38T debt with only a few willing to accept responsibility and virtually no one willing to accept the consequences. Socialism appears to be winning in the US and Communism usually follows closely thereafter!!
Uh…. Yeah what you said and you said it perfectly.
Now, what’s the solution?
I would add that advocating for state legislatures shows unfamiliarity with them. They are like Congress critters except dumber and more cheaply bribed.
Why not repeal the Federal Reserve Act while we’re at it………
It’s just as heavy a lift.
Maybe we should just go for term limiting Senators. Two 5-year terms (instead of 6 yrs).
It would be a lot easier to garner the popular support for term limits than it would be to try and convince the ignorant masses that not directly electing Senators through popular vote is in their best interest.
There is currently a Convention of States campaign wending its way through the states for term limits and a federal balanced budget. It’s somewhere around 20 states approval and needs 38 (?). Needless to say each state becomes more difficult.
There is actually a third item in the Convention of States resolution that could deal with elimination of the 17th amendment….” Reduce the scope and power of the federal government”. Now, the convention can only propose amendments. Any approved amendment must still meet a 3/4 yrs vote by the states to ratify. (see Article V in our Constitution) Yes we currently have 20 states passed (Kansas is pending) and have active legislation in all 50 states. 34 states are required to call the convention. This process is the Constitutional method our Founders included to correct federal government overreach.
There is a lot of misinformation out there about the convention process,mostly out of fear. Visit the website https://conventionofstates.com for more information and get involved.
And every stolen Senate election extends this ridiculousness.
I guess the 17th Amendment will be repealed when hell freezes over since the voting public thinks they MUST be allowed to vote for their senators.
AMEN
17th AND 16th Amendments need to be rescinded.
Option 3: Aggrieved States can use Eminent Domain to take away the Senators residence and offices. The AG of the state can file papers to freeze the assets of the Senator and family members. Cancel their Drivers Licenses. Hound the bastards relentlessly. Setup weekly Town Halls and put a stuffed scarecrow in the seat and ridicule the Senators in the media.
I’m sure other people can come up with some more pressure points too.
Good luck with repealing the 17th. They sold Grandpa and Great Grandpa a bill of goods with that one. Don’t blame the Ladies for this one. They couldn’t vote in National elections when this hoodwink came along.
Where do I sign up?
“Under the original constitutional framework, the Senate was designed to represent the interests of the state, as the Senators were appointed by state legislature, not popular votes. The Sea Island assembly destroyed this cornerstone when they triggered the 17th amendment.”
I expect that If my bright blue state’s US senators were appointed by the state legislature, they would be just as bad as the ones we have now, if not worse.
“I expect that If my bright blue state’s US senators were appointed by the state legislature, they would be just as bad as the ones we have now, if not worse.”
Repealing the 17th would mean that suddenly EVERY member of your state senate has a shot at becoming a US Senator. The competition would be fierce, as it should be. If a person wanted to use bribery tactics and coercion to win a seat he would have to win over an entire chamber that’s filled with those potentially vying for that same seat. That’s a substantial amount of treachery. So…..which is easier; trying to coerce an entire senate, or, with the 17th, only having to coerce a single populace.
Uniparty and other ignorant folks represent the Convention of States as a second Constitutional Convention in order to scare and gaslight folks into thinking that opening this particular door will put our Constitution at risk. It is correctly characterized here, however, as the states agreeing on a specific problem / topic of discussion, prior to the convention happening. No “new business” is allowed to be taken up by the state representatives participating in the convention. They may only address / discuss those topics which have been agreed to in advance to the Convention occurring. Also, the Convention may only propose solution(s) to the problem under discussion. This is their only power, despite the fear mongering about a “runaway convention.” The states would need to vote to ratify any particular proposed solution, in order for it to take effect.
Frankly, this is the only viable approach to amend the Constitution (repeal the 17th amendment), as the process totally eliminates Federal government participation and their interference (apart from their inevitable propaganda efforts). Congress may only wait, wonder and clutch their collective pearls, while the States exercise this power over them.
I might have missed something but under the current system, couldn’t the nominee just change residence to a state with 2 friendly senators?
“…if the blue slip process is removed the next leftist President can corrupt the judiciary within Republican states…”
This logic assumes a leftist Senate, if controlled by Dems, won’t change/remove the Blue Slip process themselves… Flawed Logic! These Marxists want SCOTUS packing, they’ll do it. Let’s beat them to it.
Next, if returning the Constitution to its original structure by removing the 17th Amendment is going to be such a lengthy project…
Why not change a Senator’s term to 2 years rather than 6 to make them as accountable to a popular vote as the Founders did for the Representatives?
Six years is too long for meaningful accountability to a public vote. Then at the time the amendment is made to repeal or adjust the Constitution to its pre 17th Amendment form, simply add one sentence to also adjust the term of office.
There is only one person who can get this done, has the courage and the support. That is President Trump.
If his term expires and the 17th isn’t fixed, I doubt there will be someone else to do it.
There are fewer and fewer republican controlled states. So there’s that.
The 17th is invalid on it’s face due to the last clause of article 5. “And that NO state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.” Many states rejected the 17th and were therefore deprived of the suffrage the legislatures possessed. Owen V Gloss (1921) specifically points out that there were 2 exceptions to amending the Constitution and state legislatures representation in the senate was one of them. I wrote it all down in great detail here many years ago: https://publius87.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/a-magic-bullet-will-be-needed-to-kill-the-17th-amendment-an-article-by-paul-hanson/
Sorry, the 1921 case in my post above was Dillon V. Gloss not Owen V Gloss. Thanks.
This is awesome. Thank you so much!
The situation in Texas makes me very pessimistic about sending the power back to the state legislatures. Texas is conservative but has a liberal state legislature because enough RINOs broke with their caucus and voted for the Democrats’ preferred candidate for speaker, who controls the legislative agenda. People don’t pay enough attention to state races.
Wouldn’t make much difference on ideological issues anyway. In fact a senator elected by the California legislature might be more ideologically extreme than one elected by popular vote statewide. Only in purplish states would there be any room for a repeal of the 17th Amendment to make much difference in the quality of the senate candidate.
One of the unfortunate consequences the 17th Amendment has been that the voter became less likely to pay as much attention to the positions and actions of his or her state representatives. Previously, such positions and actions were of much greater interest to every voter due to the fact that these representatives had the very important responsibility of choosing Senators, who would best represent the interests of each state at the Federal level. I believe that, having had the important function of choosing Senators no longer among their responsibilities, the state representatives have operated under less and less scrutiny by the average voter, which has often led to the passage of irresponsible legislation, not to mention corruption, at the state level.
Chuck Grassley is a Fool.
–
Senate Republicans must end the Filibuster now because
Senate Democrats once in power plan to end the Filibuster.
–
End the ‘Blue Slip’ custom for judicial nominations.
So,
This ugly Blue Slip practice was invented two elections after the 17th Amendment was ratified.
1913 ratified.
1914 and 1916 elections
1917, 2/3rds of Senate is elected.
1917 Blue Slips.
An ugly Progressive attack on America.
The “Blue Slip” process was initiated and pushed through in 1917 by southern Senators who demanded the ability to block federal judge nominations for their states who might rule against racial segregation.
Today the modern Democrat party will die on that hill to protect this “Legacy of Jim Crow.”
Didn’t Mitch modify Blue Slips importance?
Why’d the Senate go back?
Why not return to Mitch’s version?
ChiCom Mitch had 1 last shiv to grind before he relinquished the majority leader crown. He appointed himself as chairman of the Senate Rules Committee.
Whatever version of the blue slip rule is attributable to him could easily be passed through HIS committee. It wont be. Nothing that advantages PDJT or the 77M voters that elected him will see the light of day.
See it for what it is. No pretending.
So, where exactly do we go for that redress of grievances , thing !??
Maybe a kinda sorta remedy could be the Senate requires the blue slips be returned with the objections by the Senators being publicly disclosed. So the Senator objections can be compared to the facts of the nominee’s actual record. But GOPrick RINOrats wouldn’t like that.
Or judgeships remain vacant instead of getting a traitor the state’s senators would approve. Of course, we know GOPrick RINOrats will vote for any questionable nominee…..like KBJ.
And if the blue slips aren’t returned, then that is deemed approval by the given Senator and the nominee proceeds as normal. Of course, again, GOPrick RINOrats won’t like that as being too transparent.
We lost the rule under the Constitution in 1913. It’s been Post Constitution since then.
1. Federal Reserve created putting Private Bankers in Charge of American Economy via Money Supply Manipulation.
2. Passage of the 16th Amendment, Income Tax, Legalized Bribery of Politicians via favors granted to Donors for Cash.
3. The 17th Amendment that let the Mob elect Senators, rather than State Legislators, ending State Sovereignty & States’ ability to supervise the Federal Government that they created.
Great article!!! Thank you Sundance!!!!
Is there an amendment cleansing humans of corruption?
One could make the argument that what makes the POWER of the 17th Amendment even more Machiavellian in nature is the all too REAL existence of ELECTION INTERFERENCE, as in election rigging. The “selection” of DS senators rather than the “election” of said senators.
The abject stupidity of the Senate’s support of the blue slip rule is that it empowers 1 Senator to prevent 99 Senators from casting their vote on a nominee.
They seem very fond of not working & not being accountable for a vote.
The biggest issue following the passage of the 17th Amendment became Senators who were no longer representing the interests of their state. Instead, they were representing the interests of the power elite groups who were helping them fund the mechanisms of their re-election efforts as well as their own self-worth. Same is true in the House. Politicians now make used car and snake oil salesmen look like paragons of virtue!
TacticalCivics.com
Trying to get the obtuse American public to comprehend this is like trying to teach a cow to milk itself.
The GOP Senate is simply blocking Trump’s agenda as they did during his first term. The Rinos are just going to wait him out until the midterms, then sit back as the Demcorats block everything in the House.
Nuke the Silent Filibuster, and the RINOs will have reduced power to block legislation.
Having watched Convention of States legislation move through multiple state legislatures, I believe Sundance has landed on the most effective formulation yet for reaching the threshold required to convene a COS.
Repeal the 17th Amendment.
The power of that language is its simplicity. It is specific, historically grounded, and easy to understand without explanation.
That said, several predictable obstacles exist at the state level.
1) Many legislators are unaware that their predecessors once held the authority to appoint U.S. Senators. That power has been absent long enough that it no longer exists in the institutional memory of most modern legislatures.
2) Governors may also resist. A U.S. Senate seat is often viewed as a natural landing place after completing a term as chief executive, and legislation that disrupts that path is unlikely to be welcomed.
3) Voters present a separate challenge. Most people believe they have a meaningful role in electing their U.S. Senators, and the idea of returning that authority to the legislature can provoke an immediate negative reaction. This persists even though voters generally have far more practical influence over members of their General Assembly than over a U.S. Senator once elected.
I would love to see this idea gain traction so that we can begin combating the ignorance that is killing the nation.
The Convention of States movement proposes a whole series of Amendments (e.g. balanced budgets, term limits) in addition (?) to repeal of the 17th Amendment. It has always seemed to me dangerously vulnerable to capture by extreme Leftists. I do like Sundance’s idea of limiting the CoS to one issue only, repeal of the 17th, though.
That would be nice.
Ultimately, this misses the point.
If we repeal the 17th amendment, the system will change, but the players won’t.
We would still have 2 political parties that seem to put forth the worst humans alive as candidates, a media that pushes their ideology more than the truth, and a electorate that is either so cynical or miseducated that they don’t care anymore and can’t see things getting better. Changing the way they nominate those candidates won’t help.
The phrase “ you cannot undo what has been done “ comes to mind in more ways than one.
So whatever happened to Trump suing the senate of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL blue slip bs??
I take the viewpoint that the “blue slip” provision does not conform to the Constitutional ‘advise and consent’ clause. A single Senator having the power to deny the committee members as well as the entire Senate of performing their right and duty to “advise and consent” on a Presidential nominee negates the whole purpose of the ‘advise and consent’ clause. They can not advise or consent or even vote when the nominee consideration is blocked by just one Senator.
It also denies the President of his choice of nominee for the position as well as denying that choice to even be voted on, be it Yea or Nay.
It takes a 2/3rds vote of the whole Senate to impeach a judge, but only a blue slip of paper ‘not returned’ by a single Senator to “impeach” a judicial nominee without a single Senate vote taken in committee or on the floor.
And I really disagree with the ‘blue slip’ also being used for a 4 year non-judicial appointment nominee such as a US Attorney or US Marshal. I know they are using it also for the US Attorney nominees, but don’t know about the US Marshall nominees.
I don’t understand how the 17th amendment matters at this point. Democrat states with Democrat senators almost always have heavy Democrat legislatures. If you want state legislatures to appoint senators and/or confirm judges again, hardly anything would change, no? There’s only so much “tactical civics” that can be conducted in a state like Maryland or California.
You trust the current congress to hold a convention of states? NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. They would destroy the Bill of Rights.
Congress does not “hold” the convention, the states do and they can only propose amendments, and only ones that relate to applications passed by the 34 required legislatures. And finally those amendment(s) would still have to be ratified by 38 states. I highly doubt 38 states would ratify any amendment killing any of the bill of rights.
Constitution sez:
100 Senators advise and consent.
Not 2.
I agree, repeal the 17th. The difficult or nearly impossible part is how to achieve that. I don’t think anyone has the guts to call a “convention of states”. I think there is only one way to make this change and it’s very ugly.