See my tag line. Our individual states are not independent and lack true representation because of this onerous amendment.
Article V ping!
senators are no more than at-large politicians with extended terms . . .
Let’s put that statement into proper perspective.
Senators by virtue of the 17th are popularly elected “Representatives” who’s term according to the Constitution is two years not six. That fact alone is sufficient for States to nullify the 17th Amendment.
There is also some Woodrow Wilson progressive history behind the year 1913 in which the 17th was ratified and a few other things done to qualify the year as one of the worst in American history.
If your State happens to be one of many supported by tax revenue from other States through the Federal spread the wealth around program, you might consider that status in the context of the welfare system sustainability, and how long other states should be willing to support your welfare status.
The paragraph directly above is brought to you courtesy of the income tax system that allows citizens of States, to bypass State government and send tax money directly to the Federal government neutering state governments local control of their people. The income tax system is just one more unconstitutional result from the year 1913.
Bkmk
The question is: Can we learn from history?
1913 happened because 1912 happened.
In 1912 the Democrats nominated the KKK states rights candidate. States do not have rights. Only humans have rights. The 1912 KKK Democrats put the state above the individual. And the KKK was and is all about some men being smarter than the rest of us and imposing their agenda by any means necessary.
In 1912 the Republicans split into the Bull Moose Party of Teddy Roosevelt and the Republicans both of whom were clueless about strategy and tactics.
Can we learn from history?
If we repeat 1912 then will we repeat 1913?
bmfl
Pre-17, Senators were conceived as ambassadors of the States to the FedGov. Having the FedGov tell the States how to select their Senators is like the UN telling the various nations how they must select their ambassadors.
Additionally, statewide popular vote for Senators just hands power over to the populous cities. If we must vote directly for Senators it should be by some sort of state level electoral college that preserves the voices of the countryside against the onslaught of the peutocracy(*).
(*)Peutocracy - rule by purile effite urban twits.
One representative for every 30,000 persons!
States elect senators anyway they want!
House of Reps must meet in a coliseum or stadium because there should be over 5000 of them! Problem solved.
We cannot pretend that there is any kind of democracy at work in our government when we have so few representatives. Only a small number of them need to be bribed or threatened to get something done. Term limits will do nothing to address this problem.
No one really seems to offer up the “why” for the 17A. If for some 120 years senators came from appointments by states’ legislatures, then why the popular change to direct leelction by the masses?
There must be a political “raison d’etre” for the radical change.
It may have been the fed gov was seeing lot’s of popular interest in change from republican process towards progressivism and the direct election of senators would be favorable to the tide change of policy regarding the rule of law and progressive policy shift.
Just as FRD stacked the courts because he could, to facilitate a tide change on SCOTUS policy, the switch from legislative appointment to direct election had to have a reason.
Indeed, while the 17A had to be ratified by a certain number of state legislatures, I would think the list of those who so did in early and rapid succession would be telling. Perhaps NY, CA, CN, MA, NJ, VT, ME etc ( my speculation) moved quickly to ratify and eventually enough momentum was gained to assure ratification. Same method being used today regarding “social justice issues” like “same sex this and illegal immigrant that”.
Too bad. The election of state legislators who then appointed US senators indeed was a check and balance of popular wind driven shift of power in the US gov. To our chagrin.
No one really seems to offer up the “why” for the 17A. If for some 120 years senators came from appointments by states’ legislatures, then why the popular change to direct leelction by the masses?
There must be a political “raison d’etre” for the radical change.
It may have been the fed gov was seeing lot’s of popular interest in change from republican process towards progressivism and the direct election of senators would be favorable to the tide change of policy regarding the rule of law and progressive policy shift.
Just as FRD stacked the courts because he could, to facilitate a tide change on SCOTUS policy, the switch from legislative appointment to direct election had to have a reason.
Indeed, while the 17A had to be ratified by a certain number of state legislatures, I would think the list of those who so did in early and rapid succession would be telling. Perhaps NY, CA, CN, MA, NJ, VT, ME etc ( my speculation) moved quickly to ratify and eventually enough momentum was gained to assure ratification. Same method being used today regarding “social justice issues” like “same sex this and illegal immigrant that”.
Too bad. The election of state legislators who then appointed US senators indeed was a check and balance of popular wind driven shift of power in the US gov. To our chagrin.
Use the 5th to strike down the 17th, and amend the 14th.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
-PJ