Are you *%*%&*^% kidding me?!?!?! The 17th Amendment is an issue now?
Liberal scheme, blah, blah, blah…
Essentially, the author doesn’t like current liberal senate selections because they run contrary to their world view. What they forget is the entire reason that the 17th amendment was put into place. Namely that portions of the electorate were denied representation at particular points of history, simply due to the fact that initiating a campaign and election process every time that there is a senate vacancy is not always a simple, cut and dry process. The most egregious example of this was when Delaware failed to elect any senator between 1899 and 1903 and both of Delaware’s seats sat vacant for two years.
Hence, the 17th amendment, whose base intention is to maintain the function and stability of the legislative branch of government.
This is of course only an issue when Democrats select Democrats. Democrats selecting Republican senators, such as WV’s John Shott because in West Virginia:
By state code, the governor must fill the vacant seat with a person who resides in the same senatorial district and has the same political party affiliation as his/her predecessor.
So just to confirm; if you are a strict constitutionalist, it’s Ok to change the constitution when it doesn’t fit your agenda.
I won’t even give serious attention to the second point of the article; the idea of saying “fuck terms” and booting sitting senators for a single policy decision is retarded…