Why a return to federalism must include repeal of the 17th Amendment

Absolute Rights ^ | 12/13/2014 | Jon E Dougherty

[Impy]

Even Andrew Jackson was the “Yes We Can” candidate of the 1820s/30s, the “proclaimed” King of the Rabble. If FR had been around those days, we’d have considered him a thug and a loose cannon (not to mention a killer)

Yes indeed, that's why the other party called themselves the Whigs (after the Whigs of the revolution, themselves named the UK political party that opposed the power of the King), cause Andy thought he was a King. If not for the now negative connotation of "Whig" in the American political lexicon (because of how the party disintegrated over slavery) and widespread historical ignorance, I'd suggest re-adopting the name in the wake of Hussien's shamnesty fiat. We could then call people like Mitt Romney "WINOs".

I certainly wouldn't have voted for Andy. Seems like he was more than a little "off". I like how he threatened to whoop the asses of the Nullifiers though. I guess he would have been a National Union rat had he lived another 20 years (he died at 78 so he would have been extremely old).

[M Kehoe]

Good morning.

"one of the reasons the 17th amendment passed in the first instance is that there were a number of scandals in which people essentially bought Senate seats by bribing legislators."

This is true, but the corruption in DC far outweighs the corruption in two or three states.

Repeal both the 16th and the 17th amendments as soon as possible. Our economy and political systems might work properly then.

5.56mm

[SleeperCatcher]

Well, as co-opted as the system has become, I’m not sure either approach - repeal or re-assert - is feasible at this juncture. I think for the states to re-assert, they will have to do something big, like an Art. V convention, where you look at one issue at a time.

[tanknetter]

There was an interesting theoretical put forward not too long ago on a possible way to circumvent the 17th Amendment and return control over the election of Senators to the States.

The 17th Amendment states that Senators are elected by popular vote. However it’s silent on how Senatorial candidates are placed on the ballot, and law and precedent gives the states considerable latitude in tailoring ballot access and other election laws.

So, in theory, a state could set up a system by which the state legislature, rather than the parties, would nominate two candidates for Senate. Thus satisfying the requirement of popular election while giving the state legislatures much more influence and say in who gets the seat.

Now, this theory is drought with problems (a state legislature, for instance, stacking the deck by nominating a preferred candidate and then an absolute idiot who’s sole purpose is to pose no challenge to the preferred candidate), but it is interesting to consider.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I don’t believe that “one man one vote” is even a federal law. I haven’t heard of it as such, anyway. All I know is the court decision, which, if I’m right, is just more legislation from the bench.

I still believe in repealing the 17th, but I know that would not be enough. Re-organizing state Senates along the lines we discussed is essential, or else we would basically have U.S. Senators appointed by Chicago in Illinois; Batimordor, Montgomery and P.G. in Maryland; and San Fransicko, L.A. and Sacramental in California.

[Political Junkie Too]

Thanks.

I wonder how effective the Senate would be if they didn't have at least some sense of security from a secure term.

If a legislature could recall a Senator over a vote they didn't like, then just disband the Senate and give each state two votes. Let the Senators just debate and leave the voting to the state legislatures.

-PJ