Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: allmendream

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.


49 posted on 11/10/2010 9:46:25 AM PST by 5thGenTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]


To: 5thGenTexan
How? You think it will be reflected in the Senatorial role of advise and consent to SCOTUS justices? Wow, repeal the 17th and in just a few short decades we MIGHT have an influence on how the interstate commerce clause is interpreted! Brilliant!

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.

50 posted on 11/10/2010 9:54:26 AM PST by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: 5thGenTexan

I agree. The 17th gutted the 10th. The States have no advocate as things stand now.


53 posted on 11/10/2010 10:52:05 AM PST by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson