Posted on 05/01/2009 9:16:40 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
PING!
Thanks for the ping!
interesting ...
Ping for later
The 17th Amendment was a terrible thing. I’d love to see it go. But it would take a revolution.
Bottom line... the 17th exists, it is part of the constitution and has been valid and followed for many years now. Nothing can change that except another amendment to repeal it.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, "Homeland Security's Unsecure Secretary"
Latest article, "Ben Franklin (Congressman Billybob) at Knoxville Tea Party"
OK, call me silly, but what does this article have to do with anything current?
Is there some issue where this argument would come into play, or is it just a general diatribe?
bfl
Ping for later
The issue in play is that a Senator elected by a state’s legislature would be accountable to that legislature.
You may recall that one of the issues put forward by R. Reagan when running of office was the nasty habit of a spend thrift congress was to pass laws imposing on the states “unfunded mandates”.
A Senate elected by state legislatures would be unlikely to impose such laws on the states that elect them.
magic bullet nonsense....it stays around only as long as We the People decide it will. When enough of us get up off our sofas, turn of the TV, step away from the keyboard ..and go organize out state legislatures in 34 states to repeal it...it will happpen.
Direct election of senators had been proposed as early as the 1820s, and picked up support over the years. By the time the amendment was passed, 29 states had enacted some form of direct election on their own. Unless an amendment that not only repealed the 17th, but forbade the states from allowing direct election was passed, there's little reason to think much would change. People like the idea of electing their senators, and you're going to have to work hard to convince them to give up that right.
Seems like the argument in the article has merit...
Because the Senate is a collegial body, where compromise and deal making is the only way forward, Senators can operate on the national level in a way which pleases a good number of people within their state, but which may not best help the state itself.
Because of the 17th, our Reps and our Senators are very similar. But in fact they ought to be serving different masters. I think the growth of the Federal Government was greatly asssisted by the removal of Senators are true advocates of their state legislature.
While it is true that many people for a long time wanted popular election of senators, this article points out that the Founding Fathers understood that many people might WANT that -- but that they should not HAVE that. It was supposed to be blocked, but the change got through anyway.
“except as to the PLACES of chusing Senators.””
I think the founders needed to use their spell checkers.
I looked up “doctrine of laches,” which means that if you don’t assert your rights in a timely manner, they could be lost as far as a court is concerned. Since nearly 100 years have passed since the 17th was ratified, if a state attempted to repudiate it now, any citizen who sued that state for the loss of his Senate voting rights would probably win.
Yep. That's the way I see it too. Repealing the 17th is my pet constitutional argument. I think the 17th changed the fate of the nation- and for the worse.
I can understand people's arguments about the corruption inherent in the system and states not having senators for big stretches of time due to internal squabbles but the way I see it- that's that particular state's affair. If they can't get their sh1t together and send a senator to Capitol Hill, well they lose. I don't think the rest of the states should be denied doing it the way the founders set it out for them to be able to do because of this though.
Although I don't see the 17th ever getting repealed, I do like to bring this up to liberals and point out to them that the USA was never meant to be a democracy. It doesn't seem to sink in to their heads. But then, in all honesty, not too much does seem to sink into their heads...
The people of the nation elect the President.
That's the only part of your post I took issue with. The way I read the constitution, this is not true. The States elect the president via the electoral college. The way I read it, the general election is mainly for show (but one that cannot be denied to the people), a way to let the people say what they want. The States aren't necessarily bound to vote for a president based on the general election results.
Florida, for example in the 2000 election was simply doing it the way the constitution set out for the states to do by deciding to give the votes to Bush. They could equally have decided to give them to Gore- regardless of the actual tally of votes and chads and so forth.
It’s time for an Article V Constitutional Convention
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.