Our 17th Amendment - good or bad choice

[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.

[Amendment10]

"Is there evidence that pre-17th Senators weren't just as corrupt?"

I am glad that you asked that question. In my opinion, yes, the Senate was corrupt before the ratification of 17A.

Pre-17A Senate corruption is evidenced by state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices on the Supreme Court by the late 19th century. More specifically, in the Courts decision in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark (Wong) case, activist justices wrongly interpreted the 14th Amendment as giving citizenship to anybody born in the states.

The problem with the Courts decision is that it wrongly ignored that the congressional record shows that the federal lawmakers who proposed the 14th Amendment (14A) to the states for ratification had clarified that 14A is not to be interpreted as saying that a person born in the states is not automatically a citizen as the Wong justices later argued.

But let us not overlook that the pre and post-17A ratification Senate was probably nowhere near as corrupt, imo, as the post-17A, post-FDR era Senate is, the Senate now regularly helping the corrupt House to pass bills which not only steal state powers, but also steal state revenues associated with those powers.

In fact, Senate is also now refusing to work with the House to impeach and remove lawless presidents, and is also still confirming activist justices that the Senate likewise refuses to remove from the bench when such justices blatantly ignore the federal governments constitutionally limited powers.

In fact, Senate-confirmed activist justices are wrongly declaring the unconstitutional laws that the Senate helps the House to make to be constitutional!

What a scam!

As mentioned in previous post, the ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and senators who let the federal government attack 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty along with it.

[ronnietherocket3]

Pre-17A Senate corruption is evidenced by state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices on the Supreme Court by the late 19th century. More specifically, in the Courts decision in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark (Wong) case, activist justices wrongly interpreted the 14th Amendment as giving citizenship to anybody born in the states.

The text of the 14th amendment is clear. If someone is born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction, they are a citizen. If someone is born in the US to illegal immigrant parents and then at 18 engages in drug trafficking, that person can be tried in a federal court. This person was born in the US and is subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

The problem with the Courts decision is that it wrongly ignored that the congressional record shows that the federal lawmakers who proposed the 14th Amendment (14A) to the states for ratification had clarified that 14A is not to be interpreted as saying that a person born in the states is not automatically a citizen as the Wong justices later argued.

The congressional record is not a source of law. It is not passed by Congress, signed by the President, or ratified by the states. Also including the congressional record as a source of law will vastly increase the ability of prosecutors, judges, and federal agencies to burden Americans needless subpoenas and regulations.

In fact, Senate is also now refusing to work with the House to impeach and remove lawless presidents, and is also still confirming activist justices that the Senate likewise refuses to remove from the bench when such justices blatantly ignore the federal governments constitutionally limited powers.

The one time the Senate had the opportunity to remove a lawless president prior to the 17th amendment, they did not because they were worried that the then President Pro Tempore would become president.

[YankeeinOkieville]

I had to read your post 61 a couple of times but I think I follow it all. (sorry, the offspring is the lawyer, I’m more into science so not so good with the double negatives and such ;-) )

You do give good points to an argument for its repeal. Do you think there is much sentiment amongst the individual states that a convention of states would make that one of its priorities?

[YankeeinOkieville]

Not to go off track too far, but my own thoughts regarding 14A while taking into account Wong and the original intent and traditional legal meanings of words and phrases used, I don't think it covers spawn of invaders dropped within our borders. But like I said in a previous post, I leave the legal stuff to others in the family. That is not to say I don't read up on things and form my own opinions.

The text of the 14th amendment is clear. If someone is born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction, they are a citizen. If someone is born in the US to illegal immigrant parents and then at 18 engages in drug trafficking, that person can be tried in a federal court. This person was born in the US and is subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

If someone breaks into my home, they are likewise subject to jurisdiction of the make my day law and whatever means I have laying around - be it a firearm, baseball bat, kitchen knife, compound bow, or even a bowling ball. The fact that they enter uninvited does not in any way grant them or anything they may drop here citizenship in YankOkiedom.

[bunnie911]

When Tom Foley was speaker it was reported that he received 90 % of his contributions from outside the state. I am guessing senators receive significant money from outside the state, and they then become beholden to them. In such instances they do not remotely represent the interests of their states.

[YankeeinOkieville]

Love the graphic, BTW. Definitely worth every one of those thousand words. Is it yours?

[Fiddlstix]

Nope. It was made by another FReeper several years ago.
I don't know what happened to him. Haven't seen him in a long time.

[RKBA Democrat]

A wretched and horrible amendment to the Constitution. For every Jeff Sessions we get saddled wth 25 John McCains.

We would get a better CONgress if we selected the members at random. But all of this discussion of how we pick the people who lord it over us misses a much more important question:

Should we have a CONgress at all?

At no time in my memory has CONgress been an effective institution. It’s rife with corruption, anti-freedom sentiments, and sheer incompetence. At no time in my memory has CONgress acted as a meaningful check on executive power.

So why do we preserve this institution? What do we get from it of value?