Posted on 08/29/2012 9:32:13 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
There recently appeared an article at Salon critical of the idea of repealing the 17th Amendment. In it, author Alex Seitz-Wald explains how the desire to return the selection of U.S. Senators back over to the state legislatures, as opposed to direct election now, developed, and why it would be harmful if tried. In this piece, the first of two on the subject, I’ll summarize the argument, argue the benefits of repealing this amendment, and correct a few points made by Seitz-Wald.
His overview is that the idea had been a “hobbyhorse of the fringe right” for quite some time, until the Tea Party-types and Glenn Beck helped popularize it. Now that having states represented in congress has become more of a mainstream issue, a number of politicians are beginning to promote the idea. Among them are Utah’s Senator Mike Lee, Jeff Flake of Arizona, and Todd Akin (yes, that Todd Akin) of Missouri, both of whom are senate candidates for the GOP. Other prominent republicans who have supported a return to the original selection of the senate are Alan Keyes, Zell Miller, and Ron Paul.
The chief reason for repealing this amendment is to return the senate to its original purpose of representing the states. The theory is that with senators beholden to the states the balance of power would shift in their favor, and we’d return to something more akin to federalism. In this way states would not be so powerless as to have overbearing laws forced upon them, such as REAL ID for example, without at least having a say in the matter. It would also mean that unfunded liabilities and other programs mandated by the federal government, but not specifically funded by it, would not be so easily rammed through...
(Excerpt) Read more at tenthamendmentcenter.com ...
I’m concerned about the fact that most state legislators in both political parties lean more to the left on state regulations, anti-family, police state, public education aberrant social and related policies than most voters of both parties. They more often work more directly for the political/regulator class and tend to favor tax hikes. Now, in my state, the politicians and their few, favored constituents are trying to take control of tax hikes from citizens of the state (state constitution), so that those legislators, local government interests and their socialist business cronies can hike taxes against the wishes of the general population.
Same on the VAT (”FAIR”) tax issue. It’s a national sales tax for big, over-regulating government that works to keep potential domestic competition down for globals.
Have fun. Enjoy the slide. Or cut spending and dump the regulations against new, small manufacturing businesses.
Ah...on the tax hike issue, they’re using the judicial system to try to void the state constitutional amendment support of the general population against tax hikes. I don’t want to see more slavery administered by the bipartisan political/regulator class under the debt regime (which includes services owing to their majority of government-income customers).
It is precisely the same greed for power that drives their attachment to regulations, and taxes that also makes them usesfull in opposing Washington’s grasp.
Your right many of them might look past that greed and choose to divest themselves of power so that their friends in Washington can do more. But your talking about virtue among thieves, it is a far less common thing than greed.
This of course puts those of us with virtue in a far better position to game our defense with the aid of those who simply want the control for themselves.
I would not claim that this is by any means a prefect situation and solution Famlyop, but i would insist that it is far superior than that which we now have.
Thanks. It’s something to give more thought to, I guess.
The founding fathers intended that The People would only indirectly be represented. The Representatives and Electoral College were designated for this purpose. I support this concept and favor repeal.
Of course, there would have to be an amendment passed. The Senate would have to be passed, too. Do you really think the Senate would do that? Never!
Living in Louisiana, we have a prime suspect and cause to adopt the repeal of the 17th Amendment! It is none other, than ‘the blond from the Chocolate City’, $300 Million Dollar Baby, the Senator who rolled over to vote for Obamacare Mary Landrieu!!!
“Of course, there would have to be an amendment passed. The Senate would have to be passed, too. Do you really think the Senate would do that? Never!”
The first senate did, they seemed to be making the senators comfortable with their State leglsators(not hard) and assuring them that their term would not be effected.
Of course there is the other option, which I think far more appropriated given the extent of unconstitutional lawlessness in D.C. To do that we simply need to focus on securing control of as many of our State ledgslators and governorship as possible. So we can tell Washington to take a hike, medium term and long term.
I think State & local governments should be our focus anyway, not only in preparation for a new conviction, but perhaps more importantly to insure that from here on out that our children are educated in the true nature of liberty , and the legitimate extent of Government, as the teaching of John Locke.
Only with such a population of informed men can we ever hope to reclaim, restore, and retain our freedom
That traitor may make a good poster child, but never forget that the real essence of our cause is in the printable of separation & competition of power.
No one man or woman, whether they be ledgslator, judge, or executive, state or federal can out shine the basic nesasitiy of limited and competing power.
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.