Posted on 11/15/2015 9:37:56 AM PST by YankeeinOkieville
Mark Levin is one of the smartest scholars on the United States Constitution and I trust his opinion. Having said that,every once in a while he will indicate that the 17th is not his favorite amendment to our U.S. Constitution and this got me to thinking about how our country has been affected by this one - both good and bad.
While there are a number of seemingly entrenched Senators we could do with changing, due at least in part to name recognition by LIVs and misleading TV ads, I'm not at all sure state legislatures could or would do a better job of selecting replacements. Two examples that spring to mind are Ted Cruz and Dr. Tom Coburn. I highly doubt that either man would've been U.S. Senators if it were left up to the elected officials in their respective states. Both were nominated and elected through strong grass roots uprisings of the people. Both have, in my opinion, more than proven to be up the the challenge.
OTOH, would we have been saddled with as many Kennedys? Do you think the various states would impose term limits? Did any?
I dare say very few of us are students of history to the degree that we know what the mood of the country was in 1913. Perhaps Mark is. I am curious to hear opinions of my fellow Freepers on whether you think this was a good idea or bad idea and how you think the country might be different if Senators were still appointed by and answerable to the several states.
There aren’t enough truly conservative voters, but truly conservative politicians in state assemblies are rare indeed.
The interests of MA have played no part. But the mob doesn't see that. The system isn't supposed to work that way.
Horrible, it tipped the form of our government from representative republic towards representative democracy. Not good.
It may be one consideration but I don't know as it would influence the average voter any more than the likely pick of a presidential candidate for the question of Supreme Court Justice as opposed to other pressing issues. Or are you saying it absolutely did as a matter of historical fact, as opposed to it probably did as a matter of your opinion. (not meaning to challenge your assertion but wishing to understand its validity)
It may also need to be made a felony for a state legislator to discuss publicly who they plan to vote for or voted for.
IOW, you're advocating that by becoming a state legislator, a person would give up his/her right to voice an opinion or preference (thinking first amendment here) to the same extent of punishment as if they'd murdered, kidnapped or burgled? Not sure I'd be in agreement with that one.
The 17th amendment was the worst idea ever.
It was a solution to nothing, and the source of many other problems.
“Bring out your dead (horses).”
It’s whipping time.
I they don't fear God, they may as well fear their neighbors.
Oh, by the way, did I mention the State Representative job includes NO PAY, and NO PENSION? That's how it oughtta be.
Why not. They can always feed their families with food stamps while they're about the people's business. /s
I would agree though perhaps a ban on accepting monies outside of their regular pay while in elected office. i.e. NO bribes, NO kickbacks, NO speaking fees as well as a ban on becoming a lobbiest for a set number of years after leaving office.
Said ban to extend to all current or former family members to the twice removed cousin as well as any person working or volunteering for any elected official or political party.
Ping.
I believe that it was an incredibly bad idea, intended by the “progressives” to move the type of American government from a constitutional republic, with strong limitations on what the government can do, to a democracy, which would eventually devolve into the sort of progressive utopia that have never worked.
Mark
Are you aware of the Founding States division of federal and state government powers evidenced by the 10th Amendment?
But more importantly regarding 10th Amendment-protected state powers, are you aware that a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers? This is evidenced by the following excerpt.
”Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” -Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
And regarding constitutionally justifiable federal taxes, are you aware that one of the very few domestic services that the states have constitutionally authorized Congress to regulate, tax and spend for is the US Mail Service (1.8.7), the states having never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to establish other well-known federal government social spending programs, Social Security and Medicare as examples.
The bottom line is that the constitutionally limited power federal government is not working as the Founding States had intended, the 17th Amendment being the main reason that we now have an unconstitutionally big federal government on our backs imo.
More specifically, corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification senators are not doing their job to protect the interests of the states in Congress as the Founding States had established the Senate to do as previously mentioned. Corrupt senators are actually hurting the states that they are supposed to be protecting by helping to pass bills which not only steal 10th Amendment-protected state powers, but also steal state revenues uniquely associated with those powers in the form of unconstitutional federal taxes. Again, Social Security and Medicare are examples of unconstitutonal federal spending programs imo.
And the main reason that the corrupt feds establish constitutionally unauthorized federal social spending programs is to buy votes from low-information citizens imo, citizens who are clueless to the fact that the feds have no constitutional authority to establish such programs.
The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators who hurt the states that they are supposed to be protecting by helping to pass vote-winning but unconstitutional bills which steal state powers and state revenues associated with those powers along with it.
Who can be against democracy? /s.
Legislative power in republics belongs to those on whom the government acts. Since they preexist the Revolution, the states are component members of the American Republic along with the people.
The constitution acts on both the people and the states. Both should be represented in congress. Removal of the states set up an internal contradiction hostile to liberty. It makes as much sense to remove the states from the senate as it would to remove the people from the House. None.
We are paying dearly for the mistaken 17th Amendment. The wonder is that it took a hundred years for an Obama to appear.
The 17th must go.
Article V.
Well if I wasn't, I am now. Thank you for your reasoned reply. Good discussion material!
one point though
More specifically, corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification senators are not doing their job to protect the interests of the states in Congress as the Founding States had established the Senate to do as previously mentioned.
Is there evidence that pre-17th Senators weren't just as corrupt?
all: on a side note, I'm about to go do a bit of construction for a friend but will return in a few hours to view more replys to my query. Please carry on and thanks to those of you with thoughtful posts.
“American Titans” had an episode lately showing two copper barons in a bribing war of the Montana legislators for picking their US Senate candidates in the 1890s. As I recall, the bribes reached tens of thousands of dollars before all was revealed to the Eastern press.
Since copper use was expanding with the use of electricity, the copper barons had loads of cash, and wanted to translate that into political power.
This was fresh in the minds of voters when the 17th was considered.
The 17th amendment ruined the republic. Anyone not supporting its repeal is totally ignorant and really should not be posting on “Free Republic”.
The 17th Amendment basically created a second House of Representatives where pandering to the people became more important than protecting the states’ rights.
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.