Posted on 11/10/2010 7:26:53 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
First things first... let’s start by dumping the 14th amendment.
LLS
Not that it ended well (presumably in the first case), but does ANYONE think we would get a candidates like Miller in Alaska, or candidates OTHER than those like Castle from Delaware, if it were the State Legislatures selecting the candidates and voting on them?
A “moderate” party hack like Murkowski or Castle would be the order of the day if they were selected by State Legislatures.
The people are represented in the House. With the Senate also elected by popular vote, we have 2 chambers focused on vote grabbing through entitlements.
With a Senate beholden to a State legislator, the Senate would be beholden to the state. Since the state governments also want power, it becomes a balance between state and federal.
The problem of the imbalance of power between the State and Federal government is mostly through an expansive reading of the interstate commerce clause.
So long as THAT is interpreted in the way it is, States have almost no power not subject to Federal oversight/regulation, and it doesn't matter one wit which way Senators were elected.
Disband the fed control over schools and highways. Both are unconstitutional anyway
Highways and schools will be in much better shape if this is done.
Minimize federal government!
I 100% agree
I disagree. Vote grabbing by the states would be “give us our power back”.
Repeal the 17th and the 10th gets it’s teeth back.
A Senator, no matter how elected, will be a federal officer and a suspect warden at best of the interests of State rights, he is much more likely to be (as they are now) an advocate for Federal (Senatorial) power and State interests (bringing home the pork).
It is not as if before the 17th the Federal government was kept in check and after the 17th it was runaway BECAUSE of the 17th. Federal power was expansive and encroaching LONG before the 17th, and the mechanism of such is an expansive reading of the interstate commerce clause.
Regulation of interstate commerce is not a blank check to regulate any and all behavior that may have any effect whatsoever on interstate commerce. THAT is the problem withe the balance of power between States and the Fed.
Constitutional changes such as repealing the 17th Amendment require a strong popular consensus. There is no such popular consensus today, nor is one likely to emerge in the near future.
Good post. With the fraudulent ratification of the 17th, the States were disenfranchised and the “Republic” envisioned by the founders was curtailed. The new Senate seats could then be bought more easily by special interests.
I agree. The 17th gutted the 10th. The States have no advocate as things stand now.
You’re right! And, thanks for bringing that to my attention.
They are different things.
In Blago's case, he was filling a vacancy and the authority to appoint the Senator was solely his.
In the normal case prior to the 17th, it was the authority of the legislature as an entire body, not the Governor as an individual. There would have been many more checks and balances in the process.
-PJ
And that would be different, how?
If the people don't like the way the legislature is appointing its Senators, then the people at the grass roots will vote in new legislators until the make-up of the legislature is one that will appoint a Senator more to the peoples' liking.
This is the tie between the federal Senate and the local people. It is not direct and quick like it is with the House, but this is how to connect the tapestry of the Constitution with the people -- people vote for their state legislature, the legislature appoints a Senator. If the Senator fails to heed the state's wishes, the state will appoint someone new in six years. If the state legislature fails to appoint a Senator to the people's liking, the people will vote in a new legislature.
It takes time for changes to work their way through the system, but it all connects back to the people eventually, but it also ties local elections to the federal government.
-PJ
(((((((((AG)))))))))))
The problems resulting from the 17th are well known to us now. Whatever problems there may have been under the prior system are NOT well known to us now. Honesty and prudence should require that any movement to repeal the 17th should include a lengthy review of how things were before the 17th. Changing the Constitution shouldn’t be done in haste. Maybe someone can dream up some modification to either the prior or current system, or something completely different that would work even better. And don’t place too much hope on any such reforms. Be glad California only gets two Senators; don’t expect than any other method by which they are freely chosen would give you results much better than their present pair.
Just a reminder - I am not single-handedly responsible for the state of California’s politics. The mocking and unending snide references to the pathetic politics here, although correct, are hardly visionary. It would be encouraging and even perhaps uplifting to be within a conservative community that knew there was work to be done and encouraged those of us who are doing it, rather than to have to duck incoming day after day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.