Missouri GOP Senate candidate favors 17th Amendment repeal

MissouriWatchdog.org ^ | May 29, 2012 | Johnny Kampis

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

ST. LOUIS — U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, R-Wildwood, a candidate for U.S. Senate from Missouri, provided a new twist on a recent argument when he said during a Friday debate he would favor repealing the 17th Amendment.

That 1913 addendum to the U.S. Constitution allows state voters to elect U.S. senators rather than having state legislatures appoint them.

“I’m very concerned about states’ rights, and if I were to lean one way or the other it would be leaning going back to repeal,” Akin said during a debate sponsored by Springfield television station KY3.

The repeal of the 17th Amendment and elimination of other laws that move power from states to the federal government are issues advocated by the tea party movement and other far-right conservatives.

The issue came to the national forefront in 2010, with some Republicans advocating a Repeal Amendment to give state legislatures more power. Some Virginia GOP Senate candidates said they were not interested in eliminating the 17th Amendment during a recent debate in Roanoke.

Calling himself a “strong conservative,” Akin said he has “a very serious concern about erosion of states’ rights and reversing this decision might pull that balance back.”

Akin’s two main rivals in the GOP race — John Brunner and Sarah Steelman — said that while they agreed too much power has migrated to the federal government, they were in favor of keeping the 17th Amendment in place.

Supporters say the amendment reduces corruption by reducing the influence of state legislators and gives more power to the public. Opponents say allowing legislatures to pick senators would make them more accountable to their states and reduce the number of unfunded mandates handed down by Congress.

[H.Akston]

The success of the 17th Amendment proved that the reasons for it were bogus - insensitivity of the state legislatures to public opinion. If they were insensitive, they’d have never ratified it. It was an unnecessary amendment that just makes America more like France.

[Monorprise]

Keep singing that tune when Washington imposes a sales tax on the internet on top of regulations of the internet.

At the very least you should embrace your right to vote with your feet and buy from intrastate industry free of both regulation and Taxes. A right that should not be underestimated or understated.

I honestly Feel that States will inevitably have to impose sales tax on internet commerce as it comes to replace “brick and mortar” commerce.

In my opinion This should either be at the point of sale, or the point of aquation.

[Political Junkie Too]

What you're missing is this:

1. Elimination of 33 of the most expensive elections that occur every two years. That's a continuous cash flow to the MSM.

2. If there is going to be cronyism, I'd rather it be contained within the state. Why have Chuck Schumer calling the shots in New York for all the Senate seats in other states?

-PJ

[TheBattman]

Yes, I understand the “leanings” of this particular writer/site - but I have yet to find any evidence that shows otherwise than what is stated regarding the ratification votes (The actual exposition on the 17th Amendment and the ratification procedure follows an extended rant regarding the confirmation of a certain extremist and distasteful Supreme Court justice).

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd522.htm

[TheBattman]

OH - and thanks for posting that. I was familiar with that bit of “quick passage”, yet I can find few so-called “legit” sources that actually dive in to the ratification process - including states that “ratified”, yet their legislature was not in session, nor did it meet in special session for the purpose. Others that were listed as ratifying the amendment at the time declared to be passed, actually didn’t vote on it until some time after. Lots of questions.

Further - what brought about the supposed “need” for direct election of Senators? I know of the extreme corruption in some states (Nevada and California being hotbeds at the time) where Senate seats were essentially bought. My understanding of the Founding Father’s intent - the Senate was to be a check within the legislative branch.