Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: fieldmarshaldj
State governments proved in quick time that 100% popularly derived legislatures were dangerous. Our political history since passage of the 17th is more or less a reflection of that short period, 1776-1787, a muddle of populism that has damaged our property rights.

As for eliminating corruption, as the 17th was designed to do, it was a failure, yes?

I didn't say repeal of the 17th was a panacea. Repeal is necessary, but not by any means alone sufficient to restore federal government, our republic and liberty.

9 posted on 01/12/2013 3:26:10 PM PST by Jacquerie ("How few were left who had seen the republic!" - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: Jacquerie; BillyBoy; Impy; Clintonfatigued; AuH2ORepublican; Clemenza; Perdogg; GOPsterinMA; ...

I find myself having to address the misguidedness of the anti-17thers almost weekly. Simply put, I do not trust my elected state legislators (although a GOP majority in my state, my state Senator & Rep. are leftist Dem buffoons) to elect my Senators. Indeed, it would remove the last office other than Governor I have any say in (since my U.S. House seat hasn’t elected a Republican since President Grant won reelection in 1872). Those are my personal reasons.

As for other reasons, restoring legislative selection for Senators would assure that Democrat states never have a competitive race again (as distasteful as some FReepers find Scott Brown in MA to be, it would be absolutely impossible for him to get past a legislature almost 90% Democrat). Other states like Illinois would not have been able to elect a GOP Senator since 1980. In states where we do dominate, the Republicans elected would be establishment flunkies.

Texas, for example, would’ve never allowed Ted Cruz to reach the Senate, because the liberal RINO Lt Governor David Dewhurst (AKA “DewCrist) would’ve used every method at his disposal to ensure his election (indeed, he was strong-arming legislators in the primary to pimp for his candidacy, lest they lose important committee positions).

Indeed, you would have Democrat states sending the most horrid members without an ounce of accountability to the public (Harry Reid would never have to worry about reelection in NV removing the popular vote) and Republican states would send squishies and go along to get along RINOs. If Texas wouldn’t send a Conservative under such a model, how exactly do you think the new Senate would be ?

If I thought for a moment this would be an improvement, I’d support repeal, but I’ve looked at it backwards and forwards and there’s nothing that would contribute to its reigning in of the federal government size and restoration of states’ rights. Indeed, what you’re doing is putting the full faith and trust IN government to choose your Senators. Government officials are the last people I’d want choosing them.


10 posted on 01/12/2013 4:03:13 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson