Idaho GOP moves toward dropping call for repeal of 17th Amendment

The Spokane Spokesman-Review ^ | June 13, 2014 | Betsy Z. Russell

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

It was a bit lost in the hubbub over rules and credentials fights, but the platform committee at the Idaho Republican Party convention in Moscow today voted to remove one of the most controversial planks in the party’s platform: The one calling for repeal of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would have the effect of doing away with direct election of U.S. senators and instead letting state legislatures choose senators. “I was the one who made the motion,” said Rep. Brandon Hixon, R-Caldwell, a delegate from Canyon County. “It passed the committee. Now it will go to the general assembly for a full vote.” That’ll happen on Saturday.

Dan Cravens of Bingham County proposed the change, saying under the current platform, the Idaho GOP is advocating removing Idaho voters’ ability to re-elect GOP Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch. “The adoption of the language advocating the repeal of the 17th Amendment has placed a burden on Republican candidates throughout Idaho,” Cravens wrote in his proposal. “Candidates that agree to accept the tenets of the Idaho Republican Platform are forced to accept and defend the notion that the voters of Idaho, or any other state, should not have the right to elect their U.S. Senators.”

Hixon said, “Idahoans want their voices to be heard. … I can’t imagine taking the voting power away from all 1.6 million people in Idaho and giving it to just 105 people in the Idaho Legislature to elect our United States senators.”

[jjotto]

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
- H. L. Mencken

[VerySadAmerican]

“...I can’t imagine taking the voting power away from all 1.6 million people in Idaho and giving it to just 105 people in the Idaho Legislature to elect our United States senators.”

Does this dumb s.o.b. not realize that those 105 people in the legislature would be elected by the people and this is exactly what the founding fathers wanted?

[ilgipper]

it would be a hell of a lot better than what we have now. There is zero effort in DC to restrain fed control of the states. That was the intent of the Senate.

[Sam Hains]

The 17th Amendment is the reason why there is so much money in politics. It’s also the main source of hyper-partisanship, the reason power is concentrated in Washington, and why the debt has been exploding ever since.

[cva66snipe]

Recall would have been allowed for appointed senators by the states so yea we should be allowed that option as well. The main thing needed is Term Limits. Two consecutive terms should be the limit with a lifetime cap of four terms. After their second term make them take at least a one term break before allowing them to run for two final terms. Neither house should become anyone's permanent career occupation.

In Tennessee for example we have some good congresscritters. But they are comfy there and none are taking on Alexander for U.S. senate. The result is a state rep is in the running. Don't get me wrong the Rep is a good guy and I will certainly vote for him for U.S. senate over Alexander any day. But we have some conservatives in house of reps who should have done so last election and in Corker's race but didn't. They will retire from the U.S. House of Reps.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

That's the most important thing they were doing.

The 17th Amendment put the nails in the coffin of states' rights.

[pgyanke]

Too bad. Repealing the 17th is one of the best things we can do to correct what’s wrong in America. The states, as sovereign authorities, must have a veto on federal abuse.

[freerepublicchat]

The 17th amendment is fine.

The real problem is that it's next to impossible to for groups of people to carve out new states from old states. A state like Californian can completely run over and exploit one group for the benefit of another and those exploited can't do a thing because only by the consent of the current government can they create a new state. And governments almost never give up their power over others voluntarily.

The constitution needs a "self-determination" amendment that allows large groups within existing states to make their own state.

[Amendment10]

First, I will support the repeal of 17A any day. And the repeal amendment better have a provision for punitive recalls of both senators and representatives whose legislative votes show that they have no intention of complying with Congress’s Article I, Section 8-limited powers.

Next, 17A is actually not the main problem with the corrupt federal government imo. This is because senators swear to protect and defend the Constitution, including Congress’s Article I, Section 8-limited powers mentioned above, no matter who elects them. The problem is that it’s easier for corrupt senators to get away with their dirty work and paybacks when they are elected by constitutionally clueless voters then when they are elected by state lawmakers.

And speaking of state lawmakers, citizens need to work with state lawmakers to insure that voters can likewise punitively recall state lawmakers whose legislative votes likewise reflect that they couldn’t care less about upholding their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution.

Citizens also need to work with their state lawmakers to require both voters and candidate state and federal lawmakers to pass a simple constitutional law test which stresses Congress’s Section 8-limited powers. And if they don’t pass the test then they don’t vote or cannot run for office.

[lulu16]

It is so hard to be stalwart. Jesus is my model for strength against adversity. It is getting easier to get resigned. I am glad you are hopeful.

[Ray76]

The feds treat states as subdivisions rather than masters.

[TBP]

Keep it there. What’s wrong with these people?

[Jacquerie]

Thank you!

[Jacquerie]

Maybe SC would still have a Lindsey Graham for senator. I doubt it, but let's say you are right.

Now that Lindsey works for a couple hundred legislators who keep very close track of his votes, what is the chance Graham will vote in any way against the interests of SC, and more importantly, against the interest of keeping his job?

Would Graham even consider consenting to sitting judges hostile to the 10th Amendment?

By the design of the Framers, it was expected that less than virtuous men would look out for their interests. By doing so, they would keep the new federal government in its constitutional box.

[Mamzelle]

If the SC GOP can’t do the job, neither could the legislature.

[Delta Dawn]

That may be, but the repeal of the 17th would probably mean the end of professional, life-long senators.

That would be a good thing...

[Jacquerie]

I didn't expect a substantive response. You didn't disappoint.

[Billthedrill]

The pernicious thing about this sort of thing being passed as an amendment to the federal Constitution is that it has to be removed (if it is to be removed) the same way. If every single voter in the state of Idaho voted to do away with the 17th, it wouldn't be anything more than an expression of wishes of one of the ratification states.

The original plan of the Constitutional committee was for the House members to represent the people directly and for the Senators to represent the sundry state governments, not their people directly. This had an exquisitely subtle effect of moving national issues down to either the state level or directly to the people. The idea behind "democratizing" this in the 17th Amendment was that the Senate would be more directly accountable to the voters, but with a six-year term of office that simply hasn't been true in practice. But the marginalization of power for the state governments has been very real.

The flip side of the notion is that corruption would be more concentrated at the state level as well - a single power group sufficient to seize control of a state would have a direct and unopposed line to the federal government. Montesquieu among others felt that local corruption was more easily dealt with than concentrated, distant corruption - I think he may have been correct in this - but that doesn't make it any less corrupt. Without direct election it is easier for such a state-level power group to influence the federal. With it, the state government loses influence and the corruption moves to a less accessible level. It's a choice for realists, IMHO, and the idealists made it and have ever since been burned by it.

Just my $0.02.

[Mamzelle]

The effort is a delusion and an energy-waster. The legislature in SC, which I think is a pretty good test case, is in the pockets of the same influences who wanted LG in office. Our leg hates Gov Haley, who appointed Tim Scott. The leg also detested Jim DeMint. The SC GOP pays no attn to the public, which wants LG out of office. The dems crossed over to help keep LG in office, which delights the legislature. You have a hobby horse here, an obsession for a new way to make sausage. At best, it’s no improvement.

[okie01]

Some have argued that, if the 17th Amendment were still in effect, the Senate would likely be populated by "old pols" like Thad Cochrane, Mitch McConnell, Joe Biden, etc.

That may well be true. But they would've had a different mission. Rather than pandering and simply seeking re-election, they would've been there to safeguard the interests of their states -- and the outcome of legislation would've been quite different.