Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Idk why anyone would want to put the selection of senators in fewer hands (SS).  Awful idea.

Idk why anyone would want to put the selection of senators in fewer hands (SS).  Awful idea.

The Founders, who generally were pretty bright, wanted that, obviously (which doesn't make it right or wrong).  Initially, the voting public (white, over 21, male, property owners generally) only voted directly for the House.  Our Founders feared pure democracy about as much as monarchy.  They wanted checks and balances, in large part to secure the rights of minority positions.  And of course technically we still elect Presidents in very very few hands, a lot of folks would like to change that too.

I have no real position on 17, it's fine with me, it's not going to change obviously, so I don't sweat it except perhaps as a thinking exercise.

The country overall does change, the various Amendments are examples of that, and a new Amendment is a tough lift, and means most folks favor it.  We're not going to see new Amendments in my lifetime, I suspect, term limits are out for obvious reasons, we're not going to alter 2A, a Balanced Budget Amendment won't happen, the Women's ERA won't happen, I can't think of anything else remotely possible.

Maybe that is because so many folks think everything is Perfect already.  

The Founders, who generally were pretty bright, wanted that, obviously (which doesn't make it right or wrong).  Initially, the voting public (white, over 21, male, property owners generally) only voted directly for the House.  Our Founders feared pure democracy about as much as monarchy.  They wanted checks and balances, in large part to secure the rights of minority positions.  And of course technically we still elect Presidents in very very few hands, a lot of folks would like to change that too.

I have no real position on 17, it's fine with me, it's not going to change obviously, so I don't sweat it except perhaps as a thinking exercise.

The country overall does change, the various Amendments are examples of that, and a new Amendment is a tough lift, and means most folks favor it.  We're not going to see new Amendments in my lifetime, I suspect, term limits are out for obvious reasons, we're not going to alter 2A, a Balanced Budget Amendment won't happen, the Women's ERA won't happen, I can't think of anything else remotely possible.

Maybe that is because so many folks think everything is Perfect already. 

How can someone so old be so naive?

France's Macron overrides parliament to pass pension reform bill (cnbc.com)
France's Macron overrides parliament to pass pension reform bill (cnbc.com)

The French President has considerable powers because of DeGaulle.

Commitment of responsibility on a bill (49.3)[edit]

Clause 3 allows the government to impose the adoption of a text by the Assembly, immediately and without a vote, that the assembly cannot oppose without toppling the government through a motion of no confidence under Clause 2. This is one of the best known clauses of the Constitution, often cited by number, "article 49.3"^[23] or even "the forty-nine three." This clause reveals a reversal of the relationship between governments and parliaments in the 20th century in favor of the former: the executive power is no longer subordinated to the legislative one and must be able to adopt laws in accordance to its policy. The article allows the government to compel the majority if reluctant to adopt a text, and also to accelerate the legislative process, and in particular to end any obstruction from the opposition.

Not quite, a no confidence vote generates a new election.

They have a Senate and a National Assembly, basically like our Congress.  The Senate passed the measure.  Macron used this specific rule to bypass the NA.  The NA COULD vote no confidence, but I doubt they do that.  The "people" most often influence policy by striking, and at times protesting (manifestations).  It can get pretty ugly if you're there at the wrong time.