Commentary: Why we should repeal the 17th Amendment

Can’t say i dis agree on the 16 or the 14th, but the author hit the nail on the head. Strategically the 17th was by far the most devastating to the very concept of a continued federal union.

The Irony is State representation in the senate is one of the only things prohibited from removal with new Amendments in the very last line of Article 5 of the original Federal Constitution.

“no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

The point is even the founders recognized that this was absolutely critical to maintaining a Federal Constitutional republic.

The political make up of the Senate would have be very different. I Doubt FDR would even have proposed the “New Deal” instead he would have campaigned for something very different and much more State controlled.

This was true for both sides of the political ails back then, and thou i need not explain the conservative reasons for opposition, i will point out that corrupt nanny state liberals in state government also lost much, primarily because most of their political power came form machines that ran States like New York, and Ohio by way of the Political patronage trains that almost invariably accompany welfare states.

Theses local machine almost to a man fell apart after FDR’s new deal, as their source of power, the local welfare state was absorbed by Washington. Obviously a devastating development for the corrupt powers that ran theses states just as it was for the freer more conservative Americans in other states who would have been of the bunch more likely to have recognized their eventual lose of the ability to govern themselves.

Most particularly made clear in the case of FDR in the 30’s and 40’s but watching the senate elections and judicial nominations it was very clear how the Senate and subsuqnt behavior of Washington was now changing dramatically over the following decades. As the old More State based interest were replaced with more nationalistic mob based interest reflective of the design and propose of the house.

“You’re going to try to convince U.S. citizens to cede their constitutional right to elect their own U.S. Senators to their state legislatures?

My Magic-8 Ball says “Outlook not so good.”
“

I agree Its a very difficult political case to make, we would have to have a wise and historicly educated population to understand what we were, and why things are falling apart.

The Short truth is, if we are to restore the Federal Constitution in this essence way it will have to happen in one of 2 ways:

1: Revolution, of the kind that leaves us apart for a negotiated reunion. Negotiated by such people.

2: Legalistic restoration by way of actual reading the last line of Article 5 as it was intended.

Indeed in any political and/or judicial campaign to accomplish the same would likely have to be focused heavily upon that line, as well as the speech and theory’s of the founders and subsequent history.

This would primarily have to be conducted by our State Legislators, who in the process would have to demonstrate themselves as capable and best suited to govern their respective people.
Populism of State legislators that get vocal on any and all issues to which their state’s population disagrees with Congress. (The real practical effect of the 10ther movement)

Go ahead and read the last line of Article 5 and you tell me that wasn’t intended to prevent exactly what has happened in the 17th Amendment.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Go ahead and read the last line of Article 5 and you tell me that wasn’t intended to prevent exactly what has happened in the 17th Amendment.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Uh... no. The last line states: “and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.” This is not rocket science and it’s pretty plain on its face.

Suffrage is the ability to vote. Equal suffrage for each state refers to the two Senators that each state has in Congress. By having an equal number of Senators, each state was guaranteed equal voting ability within the U.S. Senate. Having the general population of a state elect their U.S. Senators directly instead of through their elected state legislature doesn’t change the number of U.S. Senators from their state. Equal suffrage for all states is maintained.

Wikipedia has a nice explanation:

“Thus, no individual state may have its representation in the Senate adjusted without its consent unless all other states have an identical change. That is to say, an amendment that changed this clause to provide that all states would get only one Senator (or three Senators, or any other number) could be ratified through the normal process, but an amendment that provided for some basis of representation other than strict numerical equality (for example, population, wealth, or land area) would require the assent of every state.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution

I agree, that is possible only if you regard the people of the State as the State. A Concept already rejected by Washington in its claim to superior sovereign power in domestic sphere, which is founded on the promis that Washington gets it’s power from the people. But if the States are the people then clearly they ceded no such power and their efforts to resist such separation are legitimate & necessary in every way.

I actually accept the concept that the States are their people as a distinct sovereign body from all the others in the world and most particularly the other 49 states. That the union that is theses united States is in fact a union of those states as body’s distinct not their component parts.
Unfourntatly that concept makes it difficult to accept a notion that the Federal Constitution can dictate how State’s govern themselves domestically.

If however the States are distinct entities separate from their populations, such as Washington has long contended in its effort to subjugate them, then enfranchisement was total abolished with the 17th Amendment, as their vote was given to a separate party, by Washington(without their consent).

A move that proved structurally catastrophic in eliminating the key checks necessary to sustain a federal union.

In one simple, declarative sentence, state what your political goal is.

Then, examine your actions. The question is not, will my actions work toward making my political goal a success. The question you need to answer is, will my actions realistically work toward making my goal a success. If your actions have no realistic chance of working, then you start exploring other possible actions which will have a better chance of success.

Realistically, repealing the 17th Amendment had zero chance of succeeding. In fact, by pushing that, you risk alienating some folks that would otherwise support you. Voters, for 100 years, have voted directly for their U.S. Senator. Some conservatives live in liberal neighborhoods in liberal states. Through no fault of their own, their state representatives and state senators may be Democrats. So now you're going to tell them that those Democratic legislators are going to select their U.S. Senator? It doesn't make any difference how logical and historical your argument is, the ultimate factor is that people will perceive that you are stealing their vote and giving it to someone else. That will never fly.

Keep pursuing this action if you want, but, in my opinion, it's wasted time which is ultimately working against your goals. Move onto some other action which has a better chance of success.

Im afraid there seems to be a miss-understanding between us.

I don’t dispute your findings, nor your conclusions on political reality as it stands today. I don’t even dispute the poor wisdom in directly confronting that political reality with the truth about Constitutional federalism and the 17th Amendment.

What I say here on that matter i say because it is the frank truth. So long as our State legislators have no means by which to protect themselves from Federal usperation in the senate. The Federal Constitutional system is fundamentally broken and will only deteriorate more over time.

Ultimately if we wish to restore the Constitution restoring the Senate will be nessary for any kind of constitutional stiblity, eyther that or something else even more powerful will have to take its place.

Politically speaking we might actually be able to get away with proposing an amendment to allow state legislators to recall senators. Althou ultimately we need something to force Washington to not only respect its constitutional bounds and stay out of the domestic sphere, or to force it. Perhaps a state appointed Constitutional court.

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.