WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

421

If Senators used to be appointed by the governors of a state, wouldn't the term of a senator hinge on the term limit of the governor? Plus, the 17th was ratified in 1913. Nothing good happened in 1913.

If Senators used to be appointed by the governors of a state, wouldn't the term of a senator hinge on the term limit of the governor? Plus, the 17th was ratified in 1913. Nothing good happened in 1913.

(post is archived)

[–] 3 pts 4y

17th isn't even legal as Article V says that no state shall be deprived of its representation in the Senate without its consent. The only way that the 17th could have been legal would have been if all of the states had ratified it before it went into effect.

Of course, no Amendment after the 12th was legally ratified. On a bit of trivia, while the 13th Amendment was not properly ratified, it is the only Amendment to have ever been properly signed by a President, as Lincoln knew that the legality of the 13th would be questioned and wanted to make sure that he made it as legal as possible.

Literally every other POTUS has, when presented with an Amendment, just decided to let it pass by default by refusing to do anything with it for 10 days (Article 1, Section 7), and most of them have kept the myth that "Presidents have no say in Amendments" alive, though the lefties did try to mock The Donald when he implied that POTUS did have a say regarding amendments.

[–] 0 pt 4y

Plethora of knowledge. Thank you.