CNN

But who pays for the special election? The residents?, the feds? And who has the money to hold a special election?

And besides this is a state issue, not a Federal Government issue.

President Obama was elected in part because of his uncanny ability to make the difficult seem surmountable, the unpalatable to seem acceptable if we can stop the partisan sniping. What has been the problem with the two most recent senatorial picks? The problem is not the choices made, but the 'hurt feelings' of the press and those not chosen. I am no student of law, but even I knew there was nothing anyone could do about the Illinois Governor's choice (seems like a good guy, elected Attorney General, etc.). How anyone can fault Governor Paterson is beyond me – he chose a seemingly capable two term congresswoman from New York. What's the problem? She's not downstate-enough? I am from NYC and I say its refreshing to get an 'upstater' into our state-wide or federal delegation. Of course she is pro-gun rights – she's from 'the country'. Let's not partisan snipe and declare our candidacy to split this national party, Ms. McCarthy. Let's give Senator Gillebrand her fair chance and see if we can 'just all get along' for a little while, at least.

As an Upstate New Yorker, I am very pleased with the selection made by Governer Patterson in New York. Sounds like the problem for many is he picked a middle-of-the-road Democrat in Gillibrand that is qualified, is an Upstate New Yorker and does not share the liberal values of Mr. Feingold.

Power to the states and, in this case, I think our Governer did it right. No support for amending the Constitution here.

To reiterate: the constitution was written with specific ways to amend it in order to accommodate changing times. This capacity shows incredible foresight on the part of the founders and gives the lie to strict constructionism.

Anyone who says "let's go back to the original language of the constitution", contending that's the way it is supposed to be, does NOT understand the constitution.

Brian

Re: Mikeal Is a speeling book the same as a Bible dictionery,...?

Fiengold needs to back down and stop attempting to limit the sovereignty of the state to make their own selections in a manner that they determine.

Feingold is an idiot. Period!!!!!!
We have better things to do than this BS. Demmies Its your ship. The rocks are ahead and you will have no one to blame.

Too much politics and not enough civil service by elected officials is making the political parties an "anachronism that must end". No change needed in the constitution, but it is time to change politics. Start acting like servants of the people. The time for change came to the presidency – old politics is over, we need to see some change in congress, state, city governments next.

The only reason Feingold is crying is because the Democrat to replace Hillary in the Senate is a Pro-Gun Democrat and not Kennedy Royalty.

Leave the Constitution alone! Obama has been in Office not even a week and the Liberals are already wanting to change the constitution. Good thing they did not get the 60 seats in the senate like they were wanting.

Allen has it exactly right. The Senators that each state sends to Washington are there to represent the interests of their STATE not the PEOPLE. Therefore, repeal the 17th amendment and return the authority to appoint Senators to state legislatures as was the original design. Sadly, that is less likely to happen than things going the other way and opening up federal judicial appointments to popular vote. God helps us if THAT travesty is ever written into the Constitution...

Dead wrong, Mr Feingold. I often agree with you on most things but this is foolish.

First, this is a State issue, so individual states ought to work this out on their own. Second, I oppose the horrible system of using popular vote to elect ANYONE. It is tyranny of the majority, and this is why the Founders required senators to be elected by the state legislature (before the 17th repealed it).

The Federal Government is too powerful as it is! To the 50 States: Do not ratify this amendment. We must defend State sovereignty.

Here we go again. Something doesn't go just right, and some politician wants to grab a headline calling for a change in the Constitution.
Leave the Constitution alone unless it's for something truly important. Changing it because one governor is corrupt, and another snubbed a Kennedy is just ludicris!
Again and again we see the wisdom of the founders in making it almost impossible to change the Constitution. If it were easy, we'd have every loony issue of the day clogging up the law of the land, until it wouldn't be worth the paper it is written on.

Is there anyone out there that has any idea of what is happening?
Russ Feingold wants everything controlled from Washington, "CHANGE" you can believe in. And watch his friend John McCain once again cross the isle to join him. But then, this is what you wanted when you elected the "Great Himself"(obama).

Let the people of each state decide how a vacant US Senate seat should be filled. The 17th Amendment as written essentially already gives the states a choice - by special election or, if empowered by the legislature, by executive appointment. Nothing's broken with the Constitution on this issue - no need to fix it.

ANYONE appointed to WORK for us the American Public, to make laws and decisions based on what is best for us and what WE want should be voted in not appointed by anyone. This 'let me give my buddy the seat' BS should have been done with a long time ago. And we wonder why politicians go corrupt.

HERE WE GO AGAIN!!! I get so tired of politicians wanting to change the rules because they don't like the outcome. This is nonsense. Let states decide how they will send their representatives to Congress. We have a problem in this country with ANYONE who has "power". WHY IS THAT! Governors have been elected by the people and in the Unusual Circumstances that lead to a vacancy within Congress, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with the Governor selecting the replacement to fulfill the term of office. I like Feingold but think this is COMPLETLEY silly. We have other much more pressing issues to deal with in this country and this does not need to be absorbing our public dialogue. GET A GRIP....

This is ridiculous. The governor should ABSOLUTELY have the right to appoint a vacant Senate seat; are we just supposed supposed to spend a bunch of taxpayer time and money when it isn't necessary? Check the economic situation before you answer that one...

The simple solution is to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. Currently, state government interests are not represented at all in Washington, D.C. The Founders designed the Constitution in a way that would allow for U.S. House members to be elected by the people, and for U.S. Senators to be appointed by state legislatures.

Its a nice idea, the problem being that in order to hold a special election it would be necessary to find candidates, have them go through the certification process to get on the ballet, organize an election and then hold the election. While in the situation surrounding either Obama or Clinton's resignations that would be feasible since everyone knew well in advance that they would be resigning. In the situation where a Senator gets sick or there is some other emergency that Senate seat would be empty for quite a while; and their State would be lacking in representation.

Sorry Senator, you got it wrong. We need to repeal the 17th Amendment and let state legislatures choose senators again. Senators were originally conceived as a balance for the states (rights) versus the house. Now all the Senate is is a "Super House", highly ripe, lobbiest loved, picking for corruption with 6 year terms. If we are ever to clean up Washington we need to repeal the 17th Amendment. Please search the subject and educate yourself.

I like Russ Feingold a lot. In my view the nation would be better off with more like him and less of the Boehner (spelling?) type. Boehner serves no-one but the Republican party and over the past 8 years we all can see what that got us.

This article says "Illinois Gov. Roy Blagojevich ." His name is ROD Blagojevich.

BOEHNER is just a Tom Delay clone. He soon will meet the same justice, Having to leave in disgrace do to his lousy performance of trying to give more tax breaks to the wealthy and lobbyists.

I appreciate Feingold's suggestion. He's right... the current practice IS an anachronism. Back when it was first established that Governors fill Senate vacancies the politics were completely different and there is way too much opportunity for corruption to enter into the equation. But instead of incurring the costs of going to the voting booths, let's let the people decide by listening to their elected representatives, and let's let the state legislatures decide in a majority vote.

finally a thinking response...thank you Jon

all senators should have to run each election that the president has to run. PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This would be a an improvement. But even better, repeal the 19th amendment, and let Senators be elected by state legislatures again instead of by the general population.

Sen. Feingold is the master of "fluff" when it comes to the old nuance of metamorphosis inebriated by the political arena that has already chosen it's future long past,..."Pathetic Badger"

one person should never have the sole responsibility of appointing anyone to a Government position. Favoritism at its finest.

This should be accomplished immediately. This appointment is NOT the 'right of a Governor.' It is the Right of the State Legislative Body of each state, or another Election to fill the seat. In this age of the Internet and Electronic Voting, this additional election would NOT be expensive. There is entirely too much 'cronyism.'

No, no, no, no, no!

The states should decide their fate, not the federal government or other state senators.

Just because their special interest buddies didn't get the seat doesn't mean they can alter our founding fathers rules.

Oust Feingold. Get rid of anyone that creates strife out of good intentions.

Great Idea, so we can throw out the idea of the founding fathers that allows the states to control and govern their own matters. And maybe the Wisconsin people might appreciate the Federal government mandating that the new senators and representatives be a person to the Congresses choosing?

I applaud both governors with the diligence and choices,( yes even in Illinois, he made a decent respectful decision, )they selected the person who would best represent their respective state , and not the choice of some guy from another state.
Is the federal government going to pay for the new elections?
It ain't broke . leave it alone.

While I agree with Feingold's ana;ysis and conclusions, this is clearly a state's right issue. What is needed is for the states to individually adopt this idea. The federal government has no place in determining how individual states determine their federal representation.

Shoot, not a word out of Feingold while Obama was completely ignoring and trashing the campaign financing law he and McCain wrote and co-sponsered. He was so quiet during Obama's illegal money raising campaign, and his refusal to release information on 300 million dollars in campaign donations, that I thought he had retired from the Senate.

I love it when people who can't even spell "illiterate" can spend their time pontificating about the American political system. Talk about the best reason to abolish universal sufferage. Get off the internet and pick up a book...A grade school spelling book!!

I also agree with Senator Feingold. Thank you, Senator, for trying to enact meaningful reform.

NEVER TRUST A SERBIAN.

It's about time, this is one place US constitution has given someone unchecked power.

I don't mind that a state governor appoints a replacement to complete a term, but I do think there should be a rule that the person should have never made a campaign contribution to the governor. That would have taken care of Roland Burris, who donated $20,000 to Blagojevich (and how is this not another of Blagojevich's pay-for-play deals?)

"Allen has a great point. I'd go a little further and put the election of the President back into the hands of the Electoral College, so that we would elect people we know and trust to decide among all eligible people and who are not committed to one or another candidate. That would really be a blow to special interest influence as well as to the two-year circus leading up to elections."

Toby,

FYI, the election is STILL, and always has been, in the hands of the electoral college. When you check the box for Obama or McCain, you are not casting a vote for them. You are casting a vote for an elector who was chosen by either Obama or McCain to cast a vote in the electoral college. These electors are actually free to vote whom they please, and there have been "disloyal" electors in various recent elections.

N.

what about state rights??? This is a state issue, chicago and new yorks, not wisonsin. Russ go back to fixing the economy...

Let each state decide.

Finally a DEMOCRATE with some integrity, nothing like the demoncratic elect president who is blowing smoke up everyones yeng yang, soon all will come out, like who was involved in selling his seat, how many other demoncratics didnt pay taxes and how many foriegn national friends do the clintons really have, soon the truth will be known.

As a former Wisconsin voter, this is the FIRST good idea from Sen. Fingold

Why not elect senators (regular and vacancy-filling) through a state-level electoral college, modeled after the presidential one?

That way, a state like Illinois isn't dominated by the main cities,

(To be fair though I don't know too much about American politics, so maybe something like this is already in use.)

And to the person who said "Let's follow the Constitution not change it" – this is following the Constitution, it was intended to be open for amendment since Day One. The level of states required to endorse amendments eliminates any concern, I think, about poor changes, and filters only the most helpful amendments through. This one, I believe, would be one of them.

I agree totally. Every vacancy should be filled by an election. In Canada it's called a by-election.

Sue:

There is an old saying that goes "It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you don't know anything, than it is to say something and prove it".

You just proved the "writing" version of that saying.

The word is "illiterate", not "aliterate" (unless you are talking about words starting with the same sound).

If you are going to insult people's intelligence, you should at least give people a reason to THINK that you are more intelligent than they are.

You should have quit after your first post, without the insult.

It sounds good in theory, but in practice? I don't know. I don't like these gubernatorial appointments at all, but I think it is a real waste of time, money, and effort to run special elections whenever a senator is promoted, removed from office, resigns, or croaks.

You guys gotta realize that as much as those who take over Obama's and Clinton's seat are given that much attention, it's because (duh) it's Obama and Clinton – the two biggest ratings hogs for the past year. Not as many senators get this much press for leaving two seats open.

And think about it this way: how wonderful was that California special election back in the day to get rid of Gov. Davis? Remember what a ridiculous frenzy it was? I mean we had politicians, lawyers, actors, and strippers for crying out loud! Take that and multiply it for every single member of the Senate who is vacating now....magnificent, isn't it? What it does is unleash a leviathan that will consume itself and everything around it in a maelstrom of continual election coverage and money-wasting.

While your at it . . . Petition for "CONGRESS TERM LIMITS", 12 YEARS–and NO RETIREMENT!

Don't stop there:
1. Move the national election to a Saturday
2. Get rid of the electoral college
3. Repeal presidential term limits

So, everytime we don't get what we want we must change the rules. Senator, before you start your crusade to change the constitution to bar governors from appointing senators, start with a constitutional amendment to (1) limit congressional terms to only 5 years (2) eliminate the electoral college (3) apportion congressional seats based on population make-up. Once we finish with those, we worry about stopping governors from appointing senators.

Thanks Sen Feingold, its refreshing to see someone step forward with a common sense answer to the mess that has been made.

Every Senate seat should be an elected one regardless of why the seat is empty. The people originally voted for the person that was there in the first place !

I'm a liberal, but I disagree with this. It's clearly a states' right issue, not one for the federal government. If the folks in Illinois and NY would prefer to have a special election (and I agree that electing the replacements is superior to a gubernatorial appointment) then they and their lawmakers should see to it at the state level.

Feingold is right on! As far as "Jon" is concerned, it is more than just a state issue. YOU seem to have forgotten that Senators mostly vote on issues that have nothing to do a specifc state but rather impact us all. Therefore, we all have an interest in be certain the process is as fair as possible. Putting that much power in on person without any criteria does affect every citiizen of this Country when it is used for personal gain (political or financial).

Feingold, get out of our business

Terrible idea by Feingold, unless he switched and became a State Senator over the weekend rather than a United States Senator. While I agree that the gubernatorial appointment power is, at this point, anachronistic, it is not something in which the federal government should meddle. How state elections and vacancies are handled are a matter for states to decided, not the federal government.

People in Washington need to remember that the federal government did not create the states – the states created the federal government.

Each time a Member of Congress introduces a constitutional amendment, I am generally relieved that the Founding Fathers wisely made it very difficult to amend our Constitution. They clearly foresaw the kind of silliness proposed by Sen. Feingold.

Hey Sue, please don't spam ALL the blogs with your nonsense about Boehner. As for your statement:

"He is trying to incite violence from the ultra right wing… people who are aliterate"

All I can say is...wow.

John Boehner..is your typical hafl baked Republican...you can bet he will have some stupid changes he will try to shove down the Democrats throats...Will somebody tell this stupid S>O>B to just shut up...The republicans LOST THE ELECTION...THANK GOD..

*** That's brilliant, change the consttution because some people disagree with the way it works. So you blow a bunch of tax payer money to hold a special election to replace someone, disrupt peoples lives and disrupt the senate inself. Carolinme Kennedy, by the way is about as unqualified to be a senator as kermit the frog. ***

Yes, nitwit, that's why we change things: because we DISAGREE WITH THE WAY IT WORKS. The only "disruption" to the Senate was caused by the APPOINTMENT mess. And if you don't like Caroline, the only reason she was being considered was because should could have been APPOINTED.

I swear I wonder how some people manage to dress themselves in the morning.

This is an overreaction to two Senate appointments that a percentage of the electoral block happen to disagree with. The current system has worked with few problems since its implementation. Besides, special elections take time, money, and voter turnout is very low. You won't be happy all the time. In this matter, let the Constitution be, America is facing bigger issues.

Maybe the state legislatures need to do their job and take the power away from the governor or share the responsibility and approve the appointment. Bottomline is, someone needs to appoint them as a special elections would leave a seat open for months and they are expensive, so vacancies should be filled by appointment, not by a vote. We need to quit ammending the consitution for all these frivilous urges.

I fail to see the reasoning behind this proposed amendment. What should be required is that the Governor selects two or three qualified appointees, then the State Legislatures, as a committee of the whole vote to select and confirm the appointment.

The special election process only works well when the time between when the opening occurs and the election is limited to less than 90 days. Sixty days would be better. Then the winner should only be determined by that person getting the most votes, and that the seat be open for election at the next general election cycle.

Further, these special elections should be publicly funded with the amount spent limited with no external monies allowed.

Thanks to my no nonsense senator from Wisconsin. This is why the guy keeps getting reelected.

While I agree that filling Obama's Senate seat was a mess, the cost of, and time required for, a special election would be an unnecessary burden on the states. People need to keep this appointment process in mind when they elect their Governors, or in New York's case Lieutenant Governors.

jon jon jon – having the state hold an election would still make it a state election. its nice to see a senator actually propose amending the constitution on a truly constitutional matter, as opposed to say, constitutionally dictating who may marry, etc. of course, i live in Florida where we have an amendment to protect the living space of a pregnant pig, so i am so deep down the rabbit hole i can hardly see the light....

Yes, but more importantly we need a law against follicle abuse. The governor's flagrant abuse of his hair is a travesty. A crime against bald men every where. We need a bill to mandate redistribution of the hair.
"No one shall have excess until all have some."

Who's Roy Blagojevich? I know the governor of Illinois is Rod Blagojevich, but I've never heard of a Roy.

Senators are elected officials. What is so bad about holding a special election? While we are at it, let's get rid of the Electoral College, and permit "Votes of no confidence" in the President...make this a TRUE Democracy!

He's right.
And Sue. What is "aliterate"? Is that something like "illiterate" just spelled wrong?
Like alegal iliens are aliterate? Or is it just you?

While he is at it, we need term limits for all U.S. Representatives and Senators!!!!!

Sue: John Boehner was referring to the Medicaid program that gives states $9 for every dollar spent on family planning. A portion of that money is for contraceptives, but doesn't build jobs or improve the economy. They're not spending $200 million on condoms, but his point about nothing improving the ecomony coming from this should be well taken.

And I am not the ultra right wing...just a guy that knows you can't borrow money to get out of debt.

I'd take it one step further to say to say that you cannot be a sitting member of the House or Senate when you attempt to run for a higher office. If you're constantly moving up that ladder while already holding a seat what kind of actual representation are you actually giving your constituents?

Just one more attack against State's rights. This is a state matter and not the US Senate's matter. This is spelled out in both the State Constitution and the US Constitution. Leave it at that. Does Feingold want to have a say in who becomes Dog Catcher?

The change should only be made if it leads to more effective government, not because people are complaining. People are ALWAYS complaining about something.

If there are special elections that will take more time to have a resolution, as well as money by politicians as well as the state. The politicians wouldn't have time for primaries and for citizens to get to know them. And these elections are notorious for drawing small numbers of voters.

This proposed change doesn't necessarily mean the voters are being heard, just that there is the appearance of impartiality.

There are other alternatives. State legislatures could do the appointing or vote on candidates suggested by the governor. Voters would have time to contact their representatives.

No matter what choice is made, there will people who are unhappy, so the change should only be made if it makes government more effective.

Feingold is wrong again! You don't change the constitution because of ONE corrupt governor at ONE point in history. The federal government has too much power and continues to try to get more and more despite what the constitution states. Has anyone out there read the history of our country? If you have you'd know that the founding fathers were concerned about our country having a central government that was too powerful. Do you even know that the present form of government we have was not the FIRST ONE THEY CAME UP WITH??? Have you ever heard of the Articles of Confederation??? The founding fathers were so concerned about an overly powerful central government that the first government they came up with was so weak it didn't even work! When they saw it wouldn't work, they constructed the one we have now! Hello? Wake up out there!

We can control lobbying anytime we want to with a simple amendment that says, unless you are a constituent of the office holder, you cannot waste his time, in person or in writing.

This is not a federal government matter...this is a state issue. Fed's needs to stay out and let the process work like it has work, until this Illinois corrupt jerk got involved.

IS A STATE MATTER.

Hi is not going to last.

ABSOLUTELY Totally agree. Had we had elections in the first place we wouldn't have Burris REPRESENTING IL. NO WAY he wins.

While he's at it, lets also change the constitution to include terms limits for both houses of congress. If its good enough for the president, its good enough for them.

This just the start of the stupidity. The good news is there are enough elections over the next couple years to get the idiots out of office.

Let the states decide the best way to deal open senate seats. Is Senator Feingold going to pay for the special elections he is trying to mandate?

Special elections are a further, unecessary waste of money for a temporary appointment.

I think the system works pretty good now. Even in the case of Blago, who hasn't been convicted of anything, a pretty decent replacement was named. Same goes in New York. One would have to ask how fast a special election could be held if no one was named. And is a state willing to not be represented while candidates scramble for a short notice election.
Give it a rest, Russ.

Very smart . . . but I don't think it will work.

Go Russ!

Feingold, along with liberal left of the party, is pissed that Caroline wasn't crowned. She didn't have the skills to be a Senator. New York state did not want a Senator who would be promoting Gay rights and Darfur and other liberal pet projects at the expense of the common good of New Yorkers. Fundamentals, such as public speaking and being compfortable in public, were simply foreign to Kennedy. That said the problem with requiring federal government requiring "special elections" is that outside political forces could manipulate the situation. Secondly, in the case of New York a "special election" will be held in 2010. Why should a state go without a Senator for such a long period of time? And if the amendment would require an immediate election who pays for it and how would politicians raise money, get their message out without having to except money from PACs and lobbying groups. The simple fact of the matter is the system is not perfect, but for a U.S. Senator to call a state governmental process an "anachronism" is a joke.

Roy Blagojevich is a rare corrupt Democrat in Illinois where Republicans have been convicted for corruption in the past.

He is just a handful of his type, the Republicans in the meantime have many corrupt politicians in their history such as: Richard Nixon, Warren G. Harding, Ted Stevens, Oliver North, Scooter Libby, North Dakota Republicans, Michael Foley, George W. Bush & Dick Cheney, Tom Delay and others that have not been caught...yet.

Congress has not had a high approval rating in the last two years but it is because the Republicans have purposely gridlocked and voted against progressive bills designed mostly by the majority Democrats. But the American people know this and that's why they re-elected many Democratic incumbent Senators & House Representatives. The Congress capabilities and capacity will be enhanced by the new presidency of Barack Obama and his Cabinet which is great. Unlike the previous incompetent, corrupt & imperialist administration of the past 8 years.

To SEG:

You can follow the Constitution and chage it. Article 5, check it out.

It is a great idea. Go Russ go. We are with you.

Special elections won't change a thing. Only party insiders ever get close to these positions of power, and the federal government, by law, can't specify how states conduct their buisness. That is how it should remain.

how about having the sen. that leaves appoint his or her successor.
after all, that person won the seat, so it should be thier choice.

Jon–By having special elections, it would still be a "States Issue." At this point, it's not up to states how to fill their vacated senate seats (this is dictated by a CURRENT constitutional amendment), so there would be no way for citizens to take it up with their states.
Toby–Currently, the Electoral College does elect the President. The way the Electoral College votes, and always has voted, is dependent on the popular vote in each state (NE is a little bit different).
Mark–This would not give power to the federal government, rather back to the people and from the governors of states.
BJ–That's the point of a constitutional amendment; all 27 of them in fact!
Sean–Republican governors are the same, except conservative...

While updating our constitution, let's also amend it to permit only one term in any elective office.

That would go a long way toward establishing democracy in our country.

Amendments, etc
In general, the CONSTITUTION as is stands presently is completely out of place with present reality & NEEDS TO BE EXTERMINATED. AMERICA is on the decline because of the many "tricks" swirling in the form of the fine print loaded into the amendments – that it's worse than attempting to "play POKER with ace's concealed in the sleeve's!!!!). E.G. (i) What's this nonsense about the right to possess weapons – in a 'concrete jungle'??? (ii) Capital punishment – who's paying the bill to defend the idea??? (iii) ILLEGAL Immigration – the LAW as demonstrated in "THE MERCHANT of Venice" is clear – 'a pound of flesh.....' – there has to be about 40+ million illegal immigrants feeding of the efforts of legal residents – look at 'hoops' that legal immigrants have to jump through to get to the point???? (iv) Tax evasion should be a major crime – many of the lawmakers have evaded filing returns & paying up on time – look at what has happened????
Lawed

"Let's try and follow the Constitution not change it."
Let's not let women vote!

Yes, that was sarcasm.

This is a rough issue to ask an amendment for. On one hand, what happened in Illinois was outrageous, but on the other hand, many constituents of the senators would probably disagree with the amendment. I'm curious how this will play out.

Jon, you need to work on your reading skills. Nothing here says the federal government will decide replacement senators. In fact, the impression given by the article is that STATES will hold special elections.

I am no fan of Feingold, but I agree on this one.
While we are at it, let's also have term limits – say a total of 12 years maximum in Congress. It can be in the House, Senate, or both, but no longer than 12 years.
That would get rid of the people that are only interested in building a power base to work from.

I agree that the epopel of each state should be able to ELECT the person that they want to take the seat. The govenor of a state represents the people of that state and so he/she should ket the people decide or he/she should, at the very least, send out a ballot to each and every household asking who they want him/her to appoint. easier to allow the people to decide who will represent them. Duh. I like the ammendment.

I agree with Allen. Let's go back to the way it is suppose to work. People should be voting for local state law makers to go to state capitols and work for them. State Law makers should be sending the most qualified candidates to Washington to work on behalf of the States interest. So many senators now go to Washington to further their own interest of gaining fame on a national stage and they forget they were sent there to work on behalf of their state.

Toby – the election of the president BACK to the electoral college? When has it left? FYI – several presidents have lost the popular vote and still been put in office by the electoral college (GW Bush in 2001 for example. Well the electoral college with the help or interference of the Supreme Court). So I don't get what you are talking about?

Heh !
Sue posted very off-topic and said:
"He is trying to incite violence from the ultra right wing… people who are aliterate."
Do you perhaps mean "illiterate", Brainy Sue?
BTW – He said "million", not "billion", but you probably don't know the difference, do you? It is quite easy to find the full interview online to confirm this.

Sean:

I am glad you were able to admit you were a Republican. Recognizing the illness is half of the cure!

Senators should be chosen by the people. NOT one person.

Sue, what in the world do your comments have to do with this article?

Give it a rest.

Democrats do not care for the constitution. They will amend it as and when they need it. All cases of senatorial appointments came from the Governors who are democrats. Why do they have problems in their governance? Most of the Governors from the states managed by democrats are asking for bail-out money because they do not want to work hard to balance the budget. They want to use tax-payers money and the money from their children and grand-children to fund themselves and enjoy life. Barack Obama has no experience in it and he is fearful to American people. He does not know what to do and he wants to take advise from stupid advisers who surround him. This is the reality. Obama Show is on now and watch out. Bad days are ahead of us.

Allen, you're crazy

I agree with Mr. Feingold, however states will complain about the federal governments new power over there local governments and we all know how that song and dance goes.

Mark: did you even READ the article??? It says that instead of governors appointing senators, that there would be a special ELECTION.

That is a way to solve a problem that you don't agree with, change the Constitution. By the way, I didn't hear much about changing the Constitution when a convicted felon can still be a senator or a congressman can get a "slap on the wrist" when he drinks and drive. Or how about when a judge can drink and drive then kill someone, and get only six months in jail.

There is nothing wrong with the Constitution, but there is a way we do business in our democracy.

Great idea, Sen. Russ. Why doesn't every senator think of a way to get headlines with a waste of time idea that has zero chance of ever being ratified? Especially an idea such as this one, which is something totally unneeded.

Hey, it's not like Sen. Russ has other things to do. The country is running smoothly; everyone is fat and happy; employment is high; debt is low; energy prices are great-it's about time someone came up with something for a senator to do with all his down time in these safe and secure times we live in.

Toby and Allen – Are you guys kidding? Don't you want to live in a democracy? We should do away with the electoral college completely and let the people elect the president. As far as appointing a Senator, it is too expensive to hold an election mid tern. Do you really want to trust the state legislatures to appoint your senators? They would try to appoint their friends, people they owe favors, people they want something from, whoever. Maybe the governor, the other Senator and all the Representives could select a new Senator? I don't know but there has to be a better way.

Yes it should be a vote by the people. And I also agree with Toby about the Electoral College. I also think its time we put a term limit on Judges in the supreme court and I think senators should be limited to two terms.

We need to be able to bring new blood in to our government.

What is the big deal. It has been this way all along, now when we have one or 2 problem items, instead of addressing the individual issue, let's change the Constitution!!! Stop being whiners and move on..

Feingold's bill has merit. Enough of this appointment stuff or "whose your buddy" appointments. Let the citizens vote in who they want to represent them for all elected positions. This way people will stop whining about who got appointed or who didn't. It should also stop this out of area/out of state politicians by requiring residency up to and including two years prior to the election.

@ Sue

You did mean illiterate right? No better way to make your point about people that you consider ignorant than by misspelling a name that you are calling them...geez

I do not wish to fund the expense of "special elections". Our politicians should be looking for means to simplify the structure and lower the cost for taxpayers. Russ, there appear to be many more important concerns for our country.

Repeal the 17th amendment and go back to the way things were supposed to run!

SEG,
The framers intended the constitution to be a living document. The Government is supposed to make amendments to it overtime in order to continue to best serve the country. If we stuck exactly to the constitution and never amended it, then our president would only be considered 3/5 of a person. This amendment is necessary and I think it would be a positive change to the constitution. I hope it gains enough support in congress.

Feingold is wasting time and taxpayer dollars. Two-thirds of the state will NEVER give up the right for their governor to appoint someone to a vacant Senate seat. Too much power already rests with the federal government as it is. The U.S. consitiution is just fine the way it is.

While well-intentioned, cost becomes a factor here- since every one of these would be a special election, the appointee (or winner) would need to run again when their predecessor's term ends. Unless the federal government is willing to pay for the special elections, a special state-wide election for one candidate is too expensive for a state to conduct.

Also, Kermit the Frog is qualified- he meets the age and residency requirements to be a US Senator (he even lives in NY!). And we know his position on the environment, 'It's not easy being green..."

I agree that appointments are not the right way to go, but please be cautious changing the constitution.

Great, This is the way it starts. Start making small changes to the constitution. Why would they change anything with the constitution. Because it does'nt fix what they want to do,. As usual.

good. noone should be appointed to represent the people.

this is retarded. who represents a state in congress is a state question. if someone vacates that representation, filling it is a state question. if the states want to do silly things like have a governor appoint a replacement (rather than spend tons of cash on special elections), good for the states. if the people of a state don't like how their state fills vacancies in the Congress, they should take it up with their state legislators.

Excellent idea by Sen. Feingold. This needed to be done.

As a side note, Blago's first name is Rod, not Roy.

I agree that this is too big a burden on the taxpayer – it works most of the time, why let a bad apple and one drawn-out indecision ruin the whole thing?

And Sue, you're a moron. It's "illiterate." Stay on point with your comments.

Russ has a good idea. Just look at all the disruption and controversy that happened in both Illinois and New York. Just hold a special election and let the people decide. It can't be that much more expensive than all the collateral damage that's been going on with Blagojevich and Paterson. I don't think either one has time to go to work anymore. They just give interviews and go on talk shows to manage all the spin. Much better to just hold a special election.

If it's possible, I'd add an item to require staes to have a "run off" if the election were close, such as Georgia and Louisiana now do - and MN should.

Johnny

The current system does little harm and saves lots of money.
These are short-term appointments.
We've got bigger problems to solve.

This is one of the best ideas I've heard out of Congress in a long time! Representatives to legislative bodies are supposed to be elected by the public, not appointed by another politician. Let the people speak and elect who they see fit. Hopefully the amendment will require special elections to replace senators and congressmen.

Somebody earlier commented that this is more power to the Federal gov't. This isn't true at all all it does is put all states on an equal footing by requiring each one hold a special election.

I agree – this should have been done when they changed how senators were selected the first time. GO RUSS GO!

It wouldn't matter, we would still end up with Blogo-type politicians in the senate. Heck, Feingold might be one of them for all I know.

What an idea. So sensible. How did someone on the senate come up with it.

I'm all for special elections!

as a republican i say leave it alone and let the states decide their own business and keep the inept senators the hell out of states business. a vacant senate spot cannot be allowed to be vacant for the "time it would take the senate to make a decision" and the states would not be adequately represented. why don't these senators just do their jobs and forget about changing the Constitution of these great United States. they spend more time picking out "the tie of the day," than they do really attending to the peoples business. have you ever noticed how much better things go when they are "out of session" and not mucking up the works of our government," trying to make it better." they have lost the respect of the American people viewing them as "out for their own personal good." don't triffle with the Constitution...for you know not what you do...idiots all.

No!!! to special election!! The pressure is finding money so let's fix this issue.

This is inane- what happens in the interim between the election and the vacancy? So a Senate seat will be vacant, providing half the representation a state should have in the time that it'd take to put together a fair special election? Conversely, if an election were to be put together in mere weeks, then it's not about the political positions of the candidates, but more about which grabs the media spotlight first and holds it longest. Can governors be crooked? Sure- but then why did the state elect them? These senators aren't being appointed for life- they're being appointed to fill the remainder of a term. Don't call for a special election to be put together slapdash, if you don't want the governors doing it, have the State Legislature do it- at least them the decision can be made quickly and it'll have some debate.

I can't see any issue with Paterson's appointment- it shouldn't have been Kennedy; she wasn't ready. The issue with Blagojevitch was that the Democratic leadership in the Senate and the State Legislature thought that he was going to play ball nicely and not appoint anybody; he clearly called their bluff and exposed it as simply a bluff. If the leadership had really wanted to avoid an incident, they should have just called for a special election, but they wanted to keep a Democrat in the seat for certain. If these things are handled in a sober and mature manner, there is no hysterium- the craziness comes when the circus comes to town.

Here's a better idea than amending the Constitution: electing morally trustworthy public officials.

Does it really happen so often that this is a big deal?

And if we never amended the Constitution, we wouldn't have the Bill of Rights, Slavery would still be legal, African-Americans and Women could not legally vote, there would still be a poll-tax, and African-Americans would still not be considered full citizens. To progress as a society, we must amend the Constitution to fit firmly in the times in which we live. The Founding Fathers knew this, and that is why they included the ability into the original document.

Excellent proposal, Mr. Feingold! Change the rules; fix the system; and keep the Republicans from taking unfair advantage of loopholes like this! Great Job!

I'm sure this will go along party lines as to WHICH seat is open and who has a chance to fill it. Like the Dems in ILL. didn't want to have an election risking losing the seat to the GOP, I can see this also occuring if it were the other way around.

His name, despite the opening of this article, is actually "Rod" not "Roy". That said, I agree – if you don't want governors to be able to appoint whomever they wish take the power away.

From the US Constitution, 17th Amendment:

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writes of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments utnil the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

The governor is already required to issue writs of election to fill the spot. Did the legislature empower him to fill the spot temporarily? If not, then what is being done is already unconstitutional. If it isn't temporary until such election, it is again unconstitutional. Adding more amendments, laws, etc. without any action to uphold them is irrelevant.

Without intending any hint of sarcasm, I would suggest becoming familiar with our current Constitution before advocating changes that wouldn't change one iota of the current Supreme Law of the Land.

SEG,
The constitution provokes two schools of thought.

1. What to think
2. How to think

I choose the latter.

I'd like to see the end of the electorial college, It was put in at a time when few were literate, to ensure the "right man" was chosen. Time to make the peoples votes really count.

I agree, return the process back to "We the People" please. I will write to ny congress people to push for the change also.

Folks please take 5 minutes and do the same look up your Senators for your state online and go to the contact page and tell them to change the process. No more one person/Governor apointments. Let US choose by elections.

with the cost of elections these days being ridiculous, this amendment is folly. Special interest will always have a play in most political decisions these days, so an argument to that effect is moot. The only "circus" that came about, in the case of blagojevich, was from the senate itself trying to overstep its bounds and over rule the will of a state, and in the case of caroline kennedy people thinking she is either entitled or not "qualified" (the constitution clearly states the qualifications needed).....We need to stop trying to amend the constitution over such trivial (and opinionated) situations.....an amendment should be a LAST resort, not a first thought

Now lets all relax. This is one of those strange political year. Otherwise, this has never been a big issue in the past. No need to change the constitution.

Thank god for Russ Feingold. With this news he is just strengthening how much admiration I hold for him.

Also, Allen and Toby, I think those ideas are most definitely the wrong way to go. If anything, we should be moving to more direct democracy. The electoral college is what gave us George W. Bush when we voted for Vice President Al Gore by over half a million votes, something no recount would have changed. Should we really give more power to a system that directly goes against the will of the American people (and 8 years later I have to say definitely not for the better either)? And how is letting state legislatures appoint U.S. Senators going to combat special interests at all? If anything, it will just strengthen their influence because they'll just commit their resources into the state legislatures so they'll directly appoint favorable candidates, not the other way around. I mean, if that process had been in place in 1930's/40's Louisiana, Huey Long would control about every bit of that state, not just the majority that he did already, because he directly controlled much of the state legislature.

A constitutional amendment as a remedy for the Blagojevich matter is clearly legislative overkill, and is wholly unmerited by the Gillilbrand designation. Fortunately, most amendments are never adopted.

I agree with Allen, the 17th amendment should be repealed. The original reasons for its adoption were vague and varied. Among them were to reduce corruption, reduce the amount of money spent in becoming a senator, fix the issues with states not sending enough senators for a quorom, and reduce the influence of lobbyists (James Madison didn't think direct election would reduce influence of special interests, very much the opposite infact - looks like he was right) . Only the quorom issue was solved, the other issues are arguably much worse.

The less dramatic change offered should have been tried first to fix the deadlocks caused by states not sending senators. That is legislation that would have allowed state legislatures to elect senators with a plurality. Lets repeal the 17th and try that instead, lets restore balance to our federal republic.

Toby In Illinois:

What do you mean "back into the hands of the Electoral College", it's ALWAYS been the Electoral College's responsibility to elect the President. That's how Gore "lost" in 2000, he had the popular vote but not the Electoral College's.

Here's some food for thought: I think the Electoral College should be based on how many people in that state ACTUALLY VOTED rather than the number of people populating the state.

Some here have said that it is expensive to have a special election.

Well, should we just simply do away with all elections because they are expensive?

The right for the people to choose a replacement for Senator or anyone in government is priceless.

And that means do away with the electoral college as well!

Good idea or bad, why all the fuss? You'll never get the required number of states to ratify the Constitution on this.

17th Amendment came about because of State Senates being corrupt. Now is our age Governors are corrupt or, as Daley puts it, cuckoo. The Constitution is a living document will need being tweaked and it is time for such a change. If it takes going to the People to ratify a change, why can't they also vote for a Senator. The rules are in place for Representatives being voted by special election, nothing there is new or needs changing.

Are you people kidding with his idea of going back to the days when backroom legislature dealing gave us our Senators. You want to talk about a political circus??

The 17th Amendment should be improved so that all Senators are not appointed but elected in much the same way as the House of Representatives when vacancies occur.

AND.. While we're at it... Can we get rid of this ridiculous Electoral College? We had to put up with 8 years of failure because of 537 votes in Florida, despite the over 400,000 people nationwide who voted for Al Gore over George W Bush. We Need A National Popular Vote Amendment!!

Toby in Illinois and Allen – so take democracy out of the hands of the citizens and give Senatorial elections back to the state legislatures? (By the way Toby, we still use the electoral college and there really are people called "electors" that we elect – we just never hear about them because they rarely – if ever – go against the will of the people).

As far as that idea go's (appointment of all Senators), how does that eliminate special interest influence? That is why we adopted the 17th amendment in the first place! Bribery, corruption and special deals among state lawmakers to get the person they wanted for Senator!

The tool Feingold would not have said a word if the NY appointment had been a hard left radical with a hint of a moustache on her upper lip.

And Sue, your booing at the inaugural was disgusting. I suppose when you and your lord and savior Obama get your "national defense" corp in place, a la Magabe, you will straighten us fascists out. Pox on you and the jack arse you rode to town on.

Humnm, Russ Feingold may... be on the right track, but I do have an absolute solution for senator Feingold, if he really insists on amending the constitution which is ok to do. Well here is the the perfect solution for all to be happy for... " A seating governor must appoint ONLY a different party candidate for the senate seat (Any other party affiliation other than his own)". for example: a democrat governor must appoint ONLY a republican OR any third party candidate (like Libertarian, Independent and so forth...) to the senate seat period. This will absolutely remove all controversial doubts. Then again, all the CNN, FOX, ABC... and World's reporters won't have much of a job to cover later on. We'll all be back to watching TIC TAC TOE or somthing...

"John Boehner is a liar trying to incite violence from the ultra right wing...… people who are aliterate."

"illiterate", you moron. Thank you for proving a point about Democratic sheep.

States are in debt and special elections do cost money, but it isn't just governors who line their pockets with special interest dollars and perks. You will find that plenty of people in the state legislatures are willing to take those same dollars and perks. Until we end the power of the special interests with laws that are enforced, the American people can expect to be sold out.

Be on guard against people who have petty reasons to change the Constitution. These will only open the door for major changes we will all regret.

Yes, excellent! I always wondered why the governor got to decide who would fill the empty spots. Why not the people? The people, after all, were the ones who elected the original Senators, so why shouldn't those same voters elect the replacement? Another alternative that I would be okay with is if the elected Senator got to appoint his/her own replacement, but I think that Feingold's solution is much better.

Great idea! Look at the disaster that Blago visited upon us....first with trying to sell off Obama's Senate seat for money and then with his "spite" appointment of Burris to the Senate.

Let's also get rid of the outdated Electoral College system while we're at it and elect presidents by popular vote.

My disgust with the mechanics of the American political process seems to increase almost on a daily basis in recent years.

The 17th ammendment already gives us-the citizens-the right to elect our senators.
I live in NY and now will have a senator that I didn't get a chance to vote for or against , appointed by a governor who wasn't voted in either.
I like Feingold's idea alot.

This is a typical Washington response: I don't like what some-state-other-than-mine did, therefore Washington needs to step in and "fix" it. Senate vacancies are relatively rare, the longest an appointed Senator will serve before facing the voters is two years, and special elections are hugely expensive (and don't forget that the bulk of election expenses are borne by cities and counties) and take a long time to put together. Requiring a special election means that a state goes without its full Senate representation until the conclusion of the election.

This is a solution in search of a problem.

The Constitution was written at a different time. It should be updated as times dictate.

Not that any of this has to do with the article...

But Sue wrote:
John Boehner lied about 200 billion dollars going to contraceptives in HR 1454 on Meet the Press…
there is no such allocation in the entire bill.
John Boehner is a liar trying to incite violence from the ultra right wing.

What he actaully said on Meet the Press per the transcript:
BOEHNER: But spending 44 - or $200 million to fix up the National Mall, $21 million for sod, over $200 million for contraceptives, how does this going to fix an ailing economy?

Seems to me that you are the one trying to incite the violence.

Statewide elections are costly and take time to organize. In the meantime, the people have NO representation. Rather than putting it in the hands of one person, it makes sense to me to have the state legislature handle it. Maybe just the state Senate. And that appointment would only last until the next regular election would be held. At that point, if there is any time left in the term, it would go to the people then.

Senator Feingold can always be counted on for integrity and keeping the slime of politics out of politics.

Why doesn't he call for something useful to our republic.....like a balanced budget??

For the umpteenth time, Feingold shows us why he is the best senator in the United States. Thanks, Russ!

Feingold is one of those small thinkers in the federal government who want to grab more control of the rights of the states in the continuing efforts to chip away at states rights–which the constitution make very clear are paramount in dealing with most issues in this country (I am sure he thinks he knows more than the framers of that great document he wants to change to his liking ). Hey, and Feingold, in case you have a short memory, there is no greater circus than what we saw over these last 2 years disguised as the election of a president. Stop infering in states rights with your obvious power grab!!!!!!!

Ho ho ho. Why refer specifically to the Illinoi governor? Something must be cooking. Good call though.

Feingold sounds like a crackpot here. Has he gone over the bend?

But what about the Gov. Manchin of WVA who's antsy for Senator Byrd's job for years now? I'd prefer special elections but they are expensive when they run outside election cycles. Having the state legislatures appoint someone may be the better option although some legislatures will stall and use it as an excuse to earn overtime pay, like Virginia's Legislature manages to do every year. If anything, our representatives should pay us for putting up with their nonsense.

I think this is a great idea.

I mean, we make such a big deal about voting and the fact that we live in a country where we can democratically choose our leaders and yadda, yadda, yadda...

Yet in cases like this, where a senator has left their office to pursue higher office, a state's governor can simply point to someone and say, "Wanna be a senator?"
That makes no sense and it makes a mockery of the electoral process. Feingold's idea is simply a plea for common sense and I think it's high time we actually acknowledged that sometimes common sense is all we need to solve an otherwise vexing problem..

I agree with this proposal of Senator Feingold's. Why hasn't Feingold ever been a contender for the presidency? He's a very sensible person of principles and integrity, to the best of my knowledge.

To Allen: you would not be seriously suggesting that state legislatures appoint the U.S. senators from their states rather having them elected in a general election if you lived in Illinois, and it was the Illinois debacle (and the New York one probably) that prompted this proposal from Senator Feingold.

First on the issue of changing the Constitution, this IS what our founding father intended to do by allowing us to change it.

I think this is an excellent addition to the 17th Amendment. In the past I feel there was nothing wrong with governor's appointing senators (other polticial and ideological disagreements), but in wake of Blagojevich's scandal I feel this is vital to the political future of our country. Whether or not you agree with Burris or the amendment, this will a great start to reforming the corruption that now plagues our politics.

"Carolinme Kennedy, by the way is about as unqualified to be a senator as kermit the frog."

LOL!! Cool, Kermit is cool...

We should go back to the way it was before the 17th amendment was introduced in 1913 as set forth in Arcitle 1, Section 3 of the constitution:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote."

Representatives are supposed to represent the people of the state. Senators are supposed to represent the state governments in Washington. The way it is now, senators are nothing more than super representatives. It makes no sense.

Right on and about time too.

The citizens should elect their reps. They should not be appointed. Period. Ever. This is a move in the right direction.

Another amendment: If the Senators are not working full-time, they cannot continue receiving paychecks. So if they are busy campaigning, they need to take an unpaid leave of absence. We should not be paying them for work they are NOT doing. That doesn't happen at any private business, why should we allow it in gov't?

This is a bad idea.

Statewide elections are a terribly expensive and time-consuming process. And, at a time when states are having trouble balancing their budgets, it becomes just another unfunded federal mandate.

Paterson made a sincere and decent choice, and–thanks to exposure by the press and the federal prosecutors of his intentions–so did Blagojevich. Thus the proposed amendment fixes a problem that does not exist.

Regardless of what the forefathers intended, we now allow US citizens to elect their senators, and I agree with Sen. Feingold, this should apply to ALL senators selected regardless of the circumstances.

HERE! HERE!

how about limiting each senator to one consecutive term?

these people are just gigantic bozos – they should, at a minimum, rotate.

Senator Fiengold needs to read the consitution first and remember it the peoples law not his or his party.

This is another example of the beginning of a dicatorship.

beware of congressmen and Senators who for their own party wants to dictate to the people their own political sham.

Who's Roy Blagojevich, and why did he replace Rod Blagojevich?

I also agree with Allen. Senators should be chosen by state legislatures to limit the power of the federal government over the states.

This Senator is just ticked off because he and other Dems wanted C. Kennedy to have the Senate seat and they didn't get their way...States have rights too!!! Allowing the Dems to change the U.S. Constitution – which by the way happens to be the oldest in the world still surviving would be the start to changing our checks and balances for the States vs. The Fed. I think it's about time the state of New York had a U.S. Senator to represent the millions of people living in upstate.New York. Protect and Defend the Constitution – do not allow the cronies to ammend one word in it just because a Kennedy didn't get their way.

It's great in theory, but it would cost way too much. States are already in too much date. Maybe another day.

I would agree with him if he also proposes in his Amendment:
1. Term limits on state and federal representatives and senators.
2. Getting rid of the electoral college.
3. If a person decided to run for President or Vice President he/her must give up and current state/federal position they currently hold.
4. Primary campaigning be prohibited until 6 months prior to an election.
5. No outside money of any type be allowed – no PACS, no Corporate, no lobby money – no outside money.

I think we should end the federal reserve's control over our money. Don't go after symptoms, go after the origin of 90% of our problems.

If you borrow $10,000 from the federal reserve at %5. The fed creates $10,000 out of thin air and puts it into circulation and we have to payback $10,500. They only created 10,000, not 10.500, so you'll never be able to pay it back

Special elections cost huge amounts of money that would be better spent on other things. I think Allen has the best solution offered here. All such appointments should be made by the state legislatures not the state governors. And specially not greedy self-serving governors like Blago. The people of Illinois should be ashamed for electing people like him. How many crooked governors are they going to vote in? Blago is the fourth one in recent memory. It makes me ashamed to be from Illinois.

And as a side note for Toby in Illinois, the Electoral College is a completely outdated concept that should be totally eliminated. It served it's purpose when America was a small, mostly uneducated, rural country with poor communication abilities. But now all that has changed. People are more intelligent, and in spite of the vast size of this nation, communications have improved greatly over the past 200 or so years. We no longer need the Electoral College. Let the people decide who runs our government.

I know why Russ didnt run for president , he is such a fine senator who always speaks the truth. Lets know when you are ready for President Mr Feingold, we will support you.

I have a better idea; let's return to the original process established by the founding fathers and get rid of popular vote elections for US Senators. Then we wouldn't have them always whoring around for money from lobbyists for re-election campaigns

Actually, a clear reading of the Constitution already states that open Senator seats should be settled by special elections. Appointments are a clear violation of the Constitution already. But if it takes another amendment to get the state governments to follow the Constitution then I'm all for it.

I'm simply amazed that we have idiots screaming against this plan because it 'violates' the Constitution, when in fact it is a reaffirmation of what the Constitution already states.

How hard it is to look this up. The Constitution is a mere google search away.

I think some on this site just like to be oppositional, no matter what the subject. Allen- How would allowing state legislatures to appoint all of the Senators reduce influence by special interest? State legislatures are subjected to lobbying, just like the US Congress. Who does that lobbying?-Special Interest Groups.

Also, Toby in Illinois, the Electoral College represents us already. Each State is given so many Electoral College votes depending on that States population plus two. Are you suggesting that we elect people to the "Electoral College" and then just say to them "we trust you to decide who the president should be"???? Most of these people are party activists already. Don't you want a little say in who the President is?

Are people really willing to give up their voting rights and let just a few people select our leaders?

Power to the people!

Good idea, but can it get the traction it needs in the states? This type of appointment creates that "king-maker" type of government that empowers people like blago & even paterson (though i like him, paterson). People like Roland Burris & Kristen Gilldebrand weren't elected to the US Senate. If they are supposed to be there, they can run. Roland Burris had lost a statewide election for Gov. 3 times in a row....do you think Illinois voters want him as their senator?

RUSS, WE NEED A TOTAL OVERHAUL OF CONGRESS, THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT SHOULD AND MUST BE CHANGED IN WASHINGTON.

MAKE BUBBA [OBAMA] SHOW HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE, POST IT IN THE OVAL OFFICE. THIS IS JUST A START

I whole heartedly agree, being from NY and having to dal with the incompetency of our interim Governor, and now this whoever Senator. I understand there are fuding issues, but I believe the people's voice and right to FAIR and ELECTED representation far exceeds anything else.

And hey there Paterson – NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION! Ya jerk!

We don't need to (nor can afford to) have this amendment because of one corrupt Governor. The point of appointment is to have seamless representation in Congress. If someone dies, we need someone in place the next time Congress meets, not after a 4 month campaign. Sorry Russ not with you on this one.

While this idea looks good at first glance, it's all a balancing act. The cost to an affected state is not small, and such a state will not have the benefit of full representation until after a special election. I'll agree that the current process isn't particularly pretty (I like Bill Ritter, but I'm still finding out who the heck Michael Bennett is), but I'm not convinced that the costs in terms of time and money outweigh the benefits of a special election.

I agree with Feingold, but If he really wants Senators to be responsive to their constituents he would include a change to 2 year terms for the Senators. That would certainly do a lot to make them pay more attention to the wishes of you constituents.

There you go!

Sounds like another unfunded federal mandate...

Another reason to continue voting for Russ here in Wisc!!

If you want to tighten up how states replace their elected representatives, don't ask the federal government to step in with a Constitutional amendment. Each state should make its own adjustments/changes. This is a democratic, state's rights issue. Don't give it up.

bj writes (sarcastically)

That's brilliant, change the consttution because some people disagree with the way it works.

---

Umm, yes. That is indeed the fundamental concept behind amending the Constitution. If part of it does not work, or does not work as intended, there is a democratic process, dictated in the Constitution itself, for changing the document through an amendment. What's wrong with that? The entire Bill of Rights was added in this way.

All they want to do is open Pandora’s box! It takes more than one Senator to change the Constitution
The individual states need to approve any change in the Constitution. While were at it let's change 2nd amendment rights to bare arms, natural born American to be president on and on…………………
Don’t you just love it when the Democrats are in charge!

No . No. and NO!

This is a typical over reaction to a flurry of Senate appointments ... Barack's seat, Hillary's seat, Biden's seat, Salazar's seat.

Senators rarely make it to be contenders in Presidential politics ... this year's results are highly UNUSUAL.

Moreover, even if they were not unusual, the Constitutioin works just fine on this point ... LEAVE IT ALONE!

The root cause corrective action is to elect governors of integrity. Two that lacked it which come to mind are the Alaska governor that nominated his daughter and Blagoevich attempting to sell his seat (which ultimately did not occur).

Finegold just wants his name in the news ... he wants some attention.

This sounds great. Obama should have come up with this idea if he wants change.

And what about a law that prevents senators from running for office unless they resign the senate? We had 3 senators in this last election cycle that got a salary for at least a year or two and were never in the senate

Currently there are 27 amendments to the Constitution. So it is far from being perfect. On the other hand, all amendments need to make things better not worse.

I think this is a great idea. I think no governor has the right to pick and choose who should be in the Senate. That should be up to the people of the United States.

i certainly agree with you.

Thanks Senator Feingold, but I think the individual states are more than capable to decide this form themselves without the intrusion of the Federal Government.

the idea is either to strike a balance between cost what feingold calls "blagojevich-style appointments"...OR choose one over the other.

on the one hand we have inefficiencies, drama and possible corruption...and on the other hand we have increased expenditures.

SO heres is my idea:

EACH U.S. senator must have a "back-up" put in place during the normal elections who would be ready to step in whenever the need arises. i think this would eliminate both the cost of an uneccesary election and the drama of a blayojevich-style appointment.

The question is – who would pay for these elections? States are strapped enough as it is, now we have to burden them with a special election?

I don't really see how the New York Senate appointment is an argument for this amendment. So Caroline Kennedy was "given the cold shoulder". Big deal. The Blagojevich scandal is a far better argument for this amendment, because it shows when things go wrong with this system of appointing Senators. The New York situation is an example of when things go right in the system of appointing Senators.

In theory, I'm for it. However, until we can find a way to make elections more affordable, I'm not in favor of having anymore than we need to. When they were talking about having a special state election in IL for the senate seat, they were saying it could cost upwards of $ 50m to run the election. That's INSANE.

This is ridiculous.The Blago flap is an anomaly. If they think Blago's a stinker, all the Senate has to do is scrutinize Burris extra hard. As for Paterson's handling of Caroline Kennedy, the only circus is a media circus. Why Caroline Kennedy withdrew is for the gossip columns, and Patterson's ineptness hardly qualifies as a consitutional crisis. Drama queens like Feingold should stop grandstanding.

I completely disagree with Allen there. Putting elections back into the hands of legislature would make it easier for special interest groups to target legislatures to push agendas. The current system has its obvious flaws, but going back to a time before the 17th amendment is not the answer.

This situation of governors appointing senators to empty senate seats isn't serious enough to warrant an amendment to our Constitution. There are other ways to handle the situation gracefully.
I believe Feingold doesn't take the Constitution seriously enough and hope the states would never ratify his attempt to turn the Constitution toward his own political ends.

Special elections are just fine. Let the people decide when it comes to an elective office. Using the cost of such an election to argue against it is a smokescreen designed to put power into the hands of smaller (and less accountable) groups.

Darn straight! Elections should be held to fill vacated seats.

Why bother changing the Constitution when nobody follows it anyway?

Hello?
Economic catastrophe looming, 2 wars, our Education system in collapse,
The Environment getting shafted by everyone.
So now Sen. Russel Feingold wants to
CHANGE THE US CONSTITUTION!!! – Why?
Because the mighty Senator does not like the politics of the two who were appointed.
Yo, Russ, get over yourself.

It's about time these knuckleheads started doing the right thing. Now if only the BCS would implement a playoff system...

If you want to run for President you should have to resign your Senate or Congressman seat when you file your intentions. I'm tired of paying Senators and Congressman for no workeee. This will solve alot of political problems. Are you running for the good of the country? What did obama do for this country in 2 years as a Senator? Very little.

The cost of a special election would be too great and take too long for a state to be without proper representation.

Mark,

This wouldn't be giving the power to the Federal Government ... it would be giving the power back to the people of that particular state ... where it belongs.

A seat in the US Senate is far to important to leave vacant for a year + while a special election is conducted. The people of a state elect the Govener; if they don't like the Governer's decisions, vote him/her out at the next election, along with the apointee! Most will probably agree that there are more important things to address right now then trying to change the Constitution.

I think this is probably a good idea, but talking to those that I know in NY a lot of them really liked Kirsten Gillibrand. It may not have made a difference with her. That said, I do think that it should be left up to the citizens of a state to make a decision like that and not the governor.

DUUUUUUUUUMB!

Keep the power divided, this crap is the WRONG direction to go...

Sue,

I agree with you 100%. John Boehner did not tell the truth. There is no such allocation in this bill. Isn't ironic that the Republicans are now concerned about spending money, since they are responsible for this economic mess!

Thank god someone has the clarity to see that the constitution is not perfect. I fully support a special election of new senators and representatives in the even a congressmen/ woman cannot stay in their position.

I agree with this. In such situations, there should be an emergency special election held, even though that would be expensive. It's the only fair way.

Liberal Democrats can not even let Obama be in office for a week, before already yelling to change the Constitution. Leave our Constitution alone! And stop crying because every Democrat in the country is not a Liberal /Socialist /Communist that seeks to take the Rights of Americans away from them. I thought Kristin Gillibrand was a great choice to counter the threats to our Constitution made by Liberals!!

Seriously!?!?! People would whine about winning the lottery.

Everyone complains about how they have "no power" over their government and as soon as some rational individual points out an obvious flaw in the system, giving the power back to the people – more whining.

How about giving the power back to the people, period. Maybe reminding people about their authority more often would make them more responsible and they would finally hold our government more accountable.

Feingold's heart is in the right place, but, as someone else mentioned, elections are enormously expensive, and some states can't afford extra elections.

There are other solutions, like:

- State legislature chooses the appointee

- Governor chooses appointee, then appointee approved by the state legislature

The main problem with the Governor alone doing it is that there is no accountability whatsoever. Getting the legislature involved prevents that.

Two term limite for all Senators problm solve.

This is one of the many reasons that I love Russ Feingold so much. T

Governor Blagojevich is truly THEE BAD APPLE in the basket. He's going to destroy the honor and integrity of being Governor in this country forever. It's obvious he's all about "self-destruction" at all costs.

Hey, my things is.... if you want to hang yourself, here's more than ENOUGH rope buddy, knock yourself out!!! Clearly, here's an idiot who doesn't know when to quit while he's ahead.

Blagojevich should have been IMPEACHED weeks ago and save the taxpayers millions!!!

Allen: How would repealing the 17th ammendment be a blow to special interest influence? Wouldn't simply shift the lobbying from US senators to state reps, leaving less checks on it!

SEG & BJ: That is the brilliance of the constitution – when people don't like the way it works, it gets changed! I for one would rather spend the $ on a special election, if it helps to ensure a real representative democracy. Who wants to be governed by a stagnant document?

Mark: How would this give the Federal gov't more power? Presumably, special elections would be run just as all elections within the states are, by the states.

It is up to the state legislatures to decide if the governor can appoint or not. Really bad idea, Feingold. The legislatures will never give up their authority in order to approve this amendment (means you're wasting your precious time – work on something important!).

Also, in light of terrorist attacks including chemical, biological, and possible suitcases with nuclear weapons, if, God forbid, the entire Congress or a large portion thereof, had to be recreated, it would already take too long to recreate the House of Representatives by waiting for elections all over the country. Now you want to make recreating the Senate time consuming as well. This could throw the entire federal government – and therefore the country – into a choatic situation for a prolonged period of time. In light of the dangers we face today, this is a really poorly thought-out idea.

Absolutely NOT. The last thing we need is a kneejerk reaction to this fiasco.

My queston: How many times in our history has this actually happened?

This may make sense if there are several years left in the newly-vacant term, but if there is less than, say, 1/3 of the time remaining, it seems that an appointment might be the best option. Having said that, a constitutional change would then have not avoided the Illinois scandal. I think instead of reacting based on this year's scandal, we should first review the last few decades' worth of appointments to see if there is any ongoing issue and figure out what qualifies for a successful appointment. Popular opinion by constituents? Winning reelection?

I like Russ, but I hate to see reactionary lawmaking, and to change our Constitution, there ought to be a much bigger problem than just one or two recent scandals.

Allen. The 17th amendment is important. Do you realize how much corruption there would be without it. Congressmen make laws. Democracy calls for people to decide who gets to make their laws. We'd be depriving people of Democracy without the 17th amendment.

Whoever wrote:

January 25th, 2009 5:02 pm ET

'John Boehner is a ...He is trying to incite violence from the ultra right wing… people who are aliterate'

Though the word 'aliterate' does not exist, you have actually made the case that perhaps the word, which would mean 'without literacy' or non-literate, would apply to you.

I am not entirely opposed to this amendment, I do question the states will pay for it, what we could do is actually give the power to the states, how about an amendment that states, in the case of a vacancy in the Senate or the House of Representives the states shall decide the sole way to fill it. The States will then decide if they want the governor to appoint the new senator, or rep. Or if they want a special election to do it. Frankly I wouldn't mind having it where the Governor is allowed to appoint on the advice and consent of the state legislature.

I think that I would support that. This way, Democracy can work as the will of the people won't be delayed and denied for two years when an appointee people don't want is in the Senate.

Also, a new amendment is exciting. It would be interesting and fun to see if this happens.

bj –

For the most part, I think I agree with the choice not to make Caroline Kennedy Senator. I actually like her quite a bit, and I think she has done well throughout most of her life to keep a low profile and trade on the Kennedy name not for the purpose of getting into the spotlight but rather for furthering socially imporant causes that she believes in. I just think we need a break from political dynasties for a while – especially given the way the last one played out on Pennsylvania Avenue. And, in any event, I think Kirsten Gillibrand is probably ok (aside from the gun nuttery, perhaps, but I doubt she'll be able to do too much damage there in the current political environment).

But all of this stuff about "Senatorial qualifications" is nonsense. There are no must-have "qualifications" to be Senator. If she had been appointed, she would have be a lot smarter than most of her colleagues in the legislator. And, to be honest, coming from a political family, and having interfaced continuously with government, business, and other organizations, at all levels, as part of her extensive public interest work – Caroline Kennedy would have brought some useful experience to her Senatorial career. People have come to the Senate with a similar amount of "experience" or even less and been just fine.

Take Hillary (and ignore the dynasty point from above). There was a lot of concern (and bile) about her becoming the junior Senator from New York. And, although I like Hillary (would have preferred her to Obama for Prez), I acknowledge that there is a good argument that being a lawer, governor's wife, and first lady rendered her no more "qualified" to be a Senator than Caroline Kennedy. But, she got elected, came to the Senate, was instantly one of the nation's smarter legislators, took on leadership roles quickly, proceeded as a moderate Democrat, and, by all accounts (except those from the angry right), did a good job for New York and the nation.

Of course certain experiences are good preparation for being a US Senator. But it is a job like no other. Everyone learns a bit as they go. Smarts are much more important – especially when, as now, the nation is not too happy with business as usual.

Finally, quit disparaging Kemit the Frog. It's not easy being green, you know.

He's right!

SEG,

That's a dangerous proposition. The constitution was designed to be a fluid and malleable document that can change with the will of the people and change with the times. That is the genius of our fore fathers and the genius of the document.

Feingold's got the right idea, but the wrong premise. The appointment should not be made by the governors, I agree. But if they're capable, the ex-senators should pick their replacements themselves! If they aren't capable, the decision will then come from the leader of the the candidate's political party in the candidate's state. I just don't think there's enough time to organize potential candidates for a special election, barring a media circus like the one in New York.

Sue: Wouldn't it be nice to have a media who actually followed up on politicians claims rather than iterate their lies over and over again.

Can a system of gov't written for conditions over 250 years ago be valid for the fast moving world of today?? The British Parliamentary system used is different forms throughout the western world is much more efficient and less prone to corruption. America will continue to fall as it clings to a system that shows over and over again it does not work.

Kirk: You are so wrong. The vacant senate seat should be filled by the governor of his choice until the term ends then have an open election.

As for feingold's proposed amendment, it makes little sense. simply because he disagrees with who was chosen in new york does not call for an amendment. Nor does the mess in Illinois. We have to stop being reactive just because we might not like a decision, and the gov of illinois dug his own political grave. neither isntance calls for a constitutional amendment.

The problem isn't with the process, it is with the Govenors. Blago appears to be corrupt. The Senate seat is not the only problem with him. Peterson handled the appointment wrong. Caroline Kennedy proved to be inadaquate and not qualified. Special elections are very expensive and few voters participate. They put an unnecessary financial burden on the States and the candidates. I'm not sure what the answer is . I do believe though that the House of Representatives should do something about extending their terms of office. Two year terms are basically to short. These people are in permanent campaign mode. Why not extend it to at least four years. Let them get settled in before they have to immediately begin to have to raise money for re-election. It would give them more time to actually READ the bills before they vote on them. "Patriot Act" is a good example.

"That's brilliant, change the consttution because some people disagree with the way it works. So you blow a bunch of tax payer money to hold a special election to replace someone, disrupt peoples lives and disrupt the senate inself."

Ummm ... yeah there's this funny thing about our Constitution I like to call the Amendment Process. Those crazy Founding Fathers had this weird idea that from time to time we might need to update things.

I don't know that I care for the idea of holding special elections either, but the ability of governors to appoint them has some pretty serious drawbacks. Should we amend the Constitution to get rid of it? I don't know. But please don't pretend to be a fan of the Constitution when you belittle one of its signal brilliancies.

So let me get this straight.

Blagojevich makes a legal but unpopular appointment that Democratic leadership can't block, Patterson denies a high ranking member of Obama's campaign team her "birthright" and the answer is to change the Constitution?

Between the attempted illegal blocking of Burris' appointment and this potential amendment, I for one am very nervous about the direction that this current Congress is taking.

doesn't he have anything important to do? there is nothing wrong with these interim appointments and what alternative is he proposing? another zillion dollars spent on campaigning and long bitter fights while states remain unrepresented? it amazes me the nits some people can find to pick!

This would be a good idea except for how long it would take to replace a Congressperson using a special election. If the people don't want their governor appointing a replacement maybe they could accept having the state legislatures pick the replacement.

Leave the constitution intact. It has served us well for hundred of years. Because some disagree wilth the appointment of Rolland Buris and Kirsten Gillibrand is no reason to change. Senator Feingold is playing politics and trying to get attention. The fact few of us outside of Wisconsin ever knew he existed is clear evidence of his political intent.

I can't believe I actually agree with something this dope supports. As long as special elections are the replacement I think this needs to happen for the integrity of our political system.

The US Constitution is fine as is.Changing the Constitution won't make lying,thieving bums into honest,upright citizens.

Ummm toby in Illinois....um, the presidential election is done with the electoral college format. your post made no sense.

Sue, YOU are "aliterate". I have no idea why a few liberals continue to bash anyone that does not totally agree with them. You are supposed to be so "progressive" and "open-minded"- and many of you are- but there are always a few like Sue that gives everyone else a bad name.

Caroline Kennedy ... besides being the grand daughter of a rum runner and Nazi sympathiser she offered what?

This is in response to Sue's irrelevant comment. The word is not "aliterate" (whatever that means) it is "illiterate", like YOU Sue!

Aha, the old liberal ploy. Bipartisan = do it our way. Constitution doesn't suit us = just change it.

Allen, you are an idiot it might get rid of special interests but would definitely encourage cronyism the like of which illistrate perfectly the situation with Blago.

Senators should be elected by the people and not appointed by governor's to fill a vacancy.

one step further would be to put term limits on all elected officials...not just the president....

Caroline Kennedy was in no way qualified to serve in congress because she does not have a criminal record...............

VOTE THEM ALL OUT.....it simple

Please note that a Democrat made this suggestion. Any minute now I expect to see a post from a right-winger claiming they had the idea years ago but were stymied by the (fill in a perceived story about Dems here).

The GOP will never go for this because it could take what power they had away from them if the people are allowed to make a voting decision on a replacement.

Personal to bj:

Caroline Kennedy is more qualified to be a Senator than Palin was to be VP.

I love those people who complain the it would be "changing the Constitution" if we initiated special elections – the Constitution was changed to allow Gubernatorial appointee as replacements...

I agree. One should only be allowed to run for one office at a time.

One single person shouldn't have the power to speak for every person in the entire constituancy. It completely negates democracy. Finding a inexpensive alternative is the hurdle that stands in the way.

In my lifetime this is the first time there has been any controversy over Governors selecting senators to fill seats ... Russ is a good guy ... but let's handle the business at hand and not let this be a distraction!

I think you mean Rod not Roy.

"First it was the uproar over the appointment by Illinois Gov. Roy Blagojevich"

Amen!

Enough appointment abuse. We want all vacated elected positions to be filled via a special election with 180 days of the vacancy.

We continually see political abuse in Illinois at all levels and in all circumstances, particularly in Chicago and Cook County with the John Stroger family (Cook County Board President and his son), the Lipinski family (retired U.S. Representative and his son), the Emil Jones family (retiring State Senate leader and his son), not to mention the Daley Family history.

Feingold has always been a senator for the people and the constitution. He was the only one to vote against the original patriot act. What a great man!

The constitution is not a document to be changed overnight, the senator has to think twice before moving in this direction. So the senator has to think also about the case when people resigns what will happen like the case of the NY governor himself. The miscariage in Illanois should not create a move to the extreem. We all love Ms Carolyne Kennedy but she doesn't deserve it because of her lack of experience and that is all and therefore she does not get it, Patterson has not created any circus around this decision making. But if people believe that meritocracy is a dream, I am not sure about that because dynastic predispositions are excluded from the same US constitution..

Yes, we do need special elections to keep all of these corrupt Democratic governors from further destroying our governmental fabric. Nevertheless, give him a slurpy and Feingold looks like he could host TMZ.

Governors should have the power to appoint senators... so just be sure not to elect crappy governors! The power of the people is in the House, and the power of the states lies in the Senate. Taking more power away from state governments only makes the federal government more powerful than it needs to be. This isn't what the founding fathers had envisioned.

Putting the appointments in the hands of the legislatures rather than a statewide election would INCREASE the influence of special intrests, not decrease it. And Toby, the Electoral College does elect the president.

This amendment is a good idea, as would be one to remove the electoral college and make the presidential elections decided by popular vote.

A sensible and highly democratic idea, how come Harry Reid never comes up with anything as worthwhile?

Let the Governor recommend a candidate of his party and allow the opposition party to select a candidate. Then have an election, allowing the citizens of the state to vote in the person they want.

All your Crap CNN.... CNN talk big today.... You are are not a Satelite CNN.... Just America... Brain Wash all your Kids.... With your Crap...
They just become an extention of you.... Your KIds have no Indipendance.... That could have been you.... Shut up in a space under the Stairs... Like Oliver Twist.... He Ran Away....

I agree with Feingold, we should vote on those seats when they need to be fill instead of letting the governor put who he/she want their.

This actually makes perfect sense to change it. The rule made sense when the Leg. of states choose the Sentors prior to the Constitution being amended, but since we elect them now, it would make sense to align these 2 rules in the Constitution.

Someone is making sense! Elected officials should be elected.

Sue's comment is one of the funniest I've seen posted in a while. Ignoring that it is completely off topic, the incorrect spelling of illiterate is hilarious. If it's on purpose, that's funny enough. If its' unintentional then it's even funnier.

@ Allen

How would going back to allowing state legislatures to appoint US Senators be a blow to special inerests? Don't you tink that this would have lobbyists throwing money around the state capitols like they were at a ticker-tape parade?

It is a good idea only if there is a better alternative. Thus, more details are needed.

Sue – what does this HR 1424 have to do with this story???

BTW – they are not aliterate. If they were it would be illiterate.

So much for the "aliterate" ultra right wing!

I believe the governor has the right to appoint who shall fill a senate seat in his state however, I also believe because Hillary Clinton had that seat, he wanted another woman to fill it leaving Cuomo out. He would have been a better choice than Kristen. Apparently Kennedy knew that she would not be selected and decided to bow out. I think he would not have chosen her, one reason she was pushing too hard to fill it. Now we have Ted Kennedy in an uproar and some of the New Yorker's. Look for Paterson maybe not getting re-elected to office again. Cuomo should run against him for governor.

let the voices of the people be heard. let the people choose their senators. give us back our power to decide, and elect our congressmen and women.

Makes perfect sense to me. If virtually every parliamentary system in the world can get by with bi-elections, then why can't the US?

I agree with an amendment. It's ridiculous the way things are now. There is just too much room for things to work against the people.

While he is at it, I hope he pushes for a change with how gubernatorial impeachment hearings are carried out. As things are now, anyone can accuse a governor and have him/her impeached without evidence.

Just because Feingold disagrees with recent appointments is no reason to change the Constitution of the United States.

Feingold . . . get over it.

Senetor Feingold,

Leave the Constitution alone. What happened in ILL will happen again. That is our system and there are problems with any system.]

Live with it.

Not that this comment will make it past the CNN moderators, but here goes:
Good for Feingold – special elections are the way to go. There's supposed to be one in 2010 for Clinton's seat; why not hold it sooner?

To Sean – look up Brian Schweitzer (D-MT) and Bill Ritter (D-CO). They are not conventional (comic-book) liberals, sorry to disappoint you. Kirsten Gilibrand is not a liberal either.
And anyway, the country voted for the second-most liberal Senator by a wide margin, remember? Conservative nutjobs had eight years, made a mess of it, and so have been losing for a while. Get over it.

what a jerk; he didn't have a complaint until a more "conservative," dem was placed in the senate (Gillibrand)...now, it's a circus...oh yeah, it wasn't a circus when they wanted to select Burris...because he's black...and that would offend someone if they dare say anything.......and in addition, Gillibrand supports gunowners. Lib dems are such indiots.

I think that this could go one of two ways, either having a special election or leave the seat vacant until the districts next planned election. Considering most places have elections twice a year (around March and November) have the seat filed at those points and those points only.

Personally as a Independent-Democrat I am all about saving the public from the waste of funding on a special election, Its not that big of a deal to have seat vacant for a few months, not like they Senate has done anything extrordinary in the last 30-40 years. They have spent more time vollying the same polices - over and over again.

You folks just have no clue. Consider the ramifications behind this. Clearly, this is s state issue. Why is the federal government now trying to breach the trust between the states and the federal government. This is just the beginning. Soon, the federal government will try to trump states rights all together. Don't be fools people.

I think it's a great idea, senators should be elected...period. No way should someone who gets up to a 6 year term be appointed to the legislature. And I hope the rest of Congress goes along with it. Although knowing politics, I have my doubts. It's good to see someone stand up and make a nice gutsy call like this though.
(and I'm a Republican myself)

He is trying to incite violence from the ultra right wing… people who are aliterate.<<<

Don't you mean "illiterate"?

If the shoe fits...!

I completely agree. These are offices which should be decided by a special vote of the citizens.

I agree wholeheartedly with Allen. Most of our amendments (after the first 10) have been horrible distortions to the original intent of the Constitution, and the seventeenth is a prime example. The founding fathers never intended for the senate to be the House "Express." There was a reason the senators were chosen by state legislatures.

We definitely don't need another amendment. We already have too many, and need to repeal about half of them. We could start by repealing the seventeenth.

I agree, Caroline Kennedy was as unqualified as Gillibrand is. It is a political circus of favors and who knows who game. Why not holding special elections and allow the people to decide?

Actually, I agree with Sen. Feingold. If we are to have a government of, by, and for the people, then it bloody well needs to BE a government of, by, and for the people. While he's proposing to eliminate anachronisms, we also need to get rid of the Electoral College. There is no good reason for not electing our President by popular vote in the 21st century.

Feingold took word out of my mouth.

In third-world countries such as India, there is a system for immediate election in case of an elected person forfeits or dies. Why can't we take it from them.

End this stupidity.

I never agree with Fiengold, but he is right about this issue! Go for it Senator, this Conservative agrees with you! maybe we can find common ground "Yes We Can!"

A good idea, but, how do you expect to fund this? Yet another drain on the taxpayers?

It is just the Democratic governors who turn the appts. into circuses.

Good for Feingold. I have been in favor of this for a long time.

Good idea to take the power to appoint U.S. Senators away from less than competent governors. While we are at it let's get rid of the Electoral College that was designed by our Founding Fathers because they did not trust the people to choose a president. Every president who lost the popular vote but won the presidency through either the Electoral College or a vote by the House of Representatives has been a failure. Here is the short list: John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, and the biggest failure of them all GEORGE BUSH (43).

Works for me. I'd also like to see term limits and a requirement that excess campaign funds be returned to the Treasury. I'd like to see caps on funds used for campaigning. The most important revision that I would like to see is Elected Officials going on hiatus to campaign, and relinqushing their salaries while campaigning for office. We taxpayers really get "stiffed" and "double-dipped" by all these "Electeds working on our Dime". Am a yellow-dog Democrat, but Pelosi giving her hubs $ 10,000 in excess campaign funds for his business makes me gag. She's probably the tip of the iceberg. Phooey!

But, who will pay for these elections..... Oh yeah, The Messiah will just rub his magic genie bottle and PUFF....more money will appear.

I this is a great idea! We need more people fighting on behalf of the people.

This ignored the 9-11 possibility. What if the capitol had been hit and all the Senators dead? What if a nuke hit Washington and the entire federal govt. was dead?

With the governors being able to appoint replacements immediately the Senators could convene, choose a Senate President pro tem, and that person would act as president.

The rest of the Senate could approve much needed cabinet secretaries.

I oppose this amendment. If it allowed 120-180 day appointments followed by an election, then that would be fine.

Allen has a great point. I'd go a little further and put the election of the President back into the hands of the Electoral College, so that we would elect people we know and trust to decide among all eligible people and who are not committed to one or another candidate. That would really be a blow to special interest influence as well as to the two-year circus leading up to elections.

How often does this even happen? Twice this election season, but how often in the past? Can we focus on more pressing matters at hand please rather than altering the constitution.

Let's try and follow the Constitution not change it.

I completely agree with Feingold!

You go, Russ!

The federal govt has too much power already. The states will never ratify this amendment.

Good it is about time but I don't see it getting much traction.

Who would make the appointments, special elections????? It sounds good to me, but would need to know more.

about time

Problem elections are expensive and most state are in debt. Who pays for a special election

Russ Feingold is such a nut. There are ALREADY special elections for Senators, but they are often too expensive and too pointless to be done immediately. What's the point of an election now, and an election next year? In emergency situations, it makes sense that the governor should make the appointment.

The governor of Colorado appointed a new Senator, and you barely have heard anything about it. That's usually how these things go.

Patterson's behavior is more like Republican spy agent. The decision would favor Republicans to pick up the Senator seat next election. The new nominee is way different from Hillary Clinton. One absolute factor should have been to pick a person who is like the former seat holder.
Caroline Kennedy should run for the Senate seat in coming election to restore the Kennedy legacy.

Great solution from a great senator. More Democrats should follow Feingold's thoughtful Progressivism. He is pragmatic but principled. Go Russ!

That's brilliant, change the consttution because some people disagree with the way it works. So you blow a bunch of tax payer money to hold a special election to replace someone, disrupt peoples lives and disrupt the senate inself. Carolinme Kennedy, by the way is about as unqualified to be a senator as kermit the frog.

I for one, a Republican, actually agree with Sen. Feingold's perception of "anachronism," and in him introducing an amendment to this affect.

Democratic Governor's are so liberal and self-sustaining that it's not even funny anymore.

John Boehner is a liar. He said that 200 billion dollars were going to be allocated to contraceptives on Meet the Press. He lied.
There is no such mention in HR 1424 in the entire bill.
He is trying to incite violence from the ultra right wing... people who are aliterate.

NEW RULE

Any Senator or Congressman leaving office before his/her term ends should be allowed to name their own replacement. After all, the Senator or Congressman got the seat they are now leaving in a fair & open election. If the governor of that state, or if the state legislature do not like the pick, than the Governor and/or legislature can initiate new elections to replace Senator or Congressman's pick.

Why don't you change it back to the way the Fathers intended in the first place!!!

John Boehner lied about 200 billion dollars going to contraceptives in HR 1454 on Meet the Press...
there is no such allocation in the entire bill.
John Boehner is a liar trying to incite violence from the ultra right wing.

The seventeenth amendment needs to be repealed (not just tweaked). We need to go back to allowing the state legislatures to appoint ALL U.S. senators (the way our forefathers intended). Though this would not eliminate special interest influence 100%, it would still be a big blow.

Finally, someone from Congress says something that makes sense.

amen !

Makes a lot of sense to me for both sides.

GOOD FOR HIM AND I STRONGLY AGREE WITH HIM. THE SENATE SHOULD ALSO CREATE AN ACCOUNT SO THAT THE SENATE PAYS FOR THIS SPECIAL ELECTION.

Russ, I've never voted for you or any other democrat, but your plan in this instance makes perfect sense. It helps eliminate more political corruption.

so what gives?

the tiny group of super-rich super-powerful elite are afraid that

the people have too much power!

feingold, i expected better of you!

i guess you're part of the ever-arrogant elite group, after all!

Hooray! It makes no sense whatsoever in a democracy that one person (even a governor) should select someone to fill a vacant senate seat. In a democracy, we should select our congrespersons by the ballot box. Let us the public decide. Good for you Senator Feingold.

I agree. Since senators initially are supposed to be elected by the citizens, even the ones that have to fill in after a senate seat is vacated mid-term, like Senator Obama's and Senator Clinton's was should be decided by special elections by the those same citizens whom they represent.

I agree100%. Special elections is the way to go! Now, let's work on setting term limits.

creating another politcal circus? or just more or the usual?

Enough is enough. Governor "Blag" is only the tip of political deal-making and self-serving appointment activities. This has being going on since we have been a country. It's time to put the power of selecting those that go to Washington to represent us back in our own hands. I agree with Feingold. Special elections MUST be the way to go. We certainly will never stop self-serving politicians, but we can put them on notice that they are OUR employees.

Perhaps the Senator and his colleagues ought to look at something else, as well. I would suggest that an individual cannot run for two federal positions at the same time - like President and/or Vice President while running for a Congressional seat (Senator or member of the House of Representatives). One should be required to choose between the two and not have one to fall back on if one loses the non-Congressional position. Obviously what Senator Feingold is going to propose would be needed for a sitting member of Congress being elected to another federal position while his/her term is not going to end concurrent with the new term.

BRAVO FEINGOLD..... Russ is a long-time favorite of mine.... and this is a great idea... appointments to the senate by a governor are bound to be tied up in political BALONEY.... the people should elect a senator....

If anyone can pull us out of this horrible economy it's the democrats.
Let's tweek the system before it's too late.

I agree with Senator Feingold 100%.

he's right. elections for all.
repeal the 17th amendement.

While I might aggreee with Senator Feingold, is this the most importqnt issue that the Snate has to deal with right now? Hardly?