Posted on 01/30/2006 6:23:10 AM PST by FerdieMurphy
This has been one of the wrongs I believed needed righting long ago. But who, or what group, is going to take the lead to reverse this evil?
Instead of "moderates" (who stand for nothing) running around in search of a cause or two, perhaps a few would join true conservatives to change this back to where it made sense. If this hadn't happened there would be no lifers like Teddy Kennedy, Bobby Byrd-Brain, Patrick Leahy et al.
Good to see someone recognizes the 17th Amendment for what it is.
Uh, I hate to break the news to this person, but there are TWENTY-SEVEN amendments.
Oh no! Not another one!
You could not be more right.
To begin with, the idea that it was "undemocratic" to select federal Senators by the states elected representatives was false to begin with. What were the states' elected representatives if not "democratically" chosen? Are the rest of their decisions "undemocratic". The argument was alays false.
You are right, in that the goal achieved was transfer of power (desire to weild power) was transferred from the states to the federal congress, and that congress begin immediately to expand its powers at the expense of the executive.
Repealing the 17th amendment should become part of the long term conservative agenda.
Or, as the prestigious Klinton white house would say, "Sooner rather than later."
In addition to repealing the 17th Amendment we should adhere to the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And, in addition, repeal the following amendment:
16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
I still think the demise of Federalism and the increasing tendency of the Supreme Court to legislate its policy preferences is more destructive than the direct election of Senators. Is there any research into how Senators acted before and after this amendment, to see if it made any real difference?
Right-O.
Just imagine how much money would be taken out of the "campaign trail" if Senators came from the ranks of a state legislature. They would no longer need to appeal directly to the people and a simple letter to your local representative would be sufficient to show who you support.
That reason alone will prevent it's repeal from ever happening, too many rich elites who buy senate seats through campaign financing.
And in addition to that why should I trust the oh-so-glorious(/sarc) NY State Leg to choose a better Senator then I could. Ditto the State Leg's of Mass, CA, VT, MD, etc.
And the third leg of the bad legislation regardimg the 16th and 17th amendments of 1913 is the Federal Reserve Act.
State Legislator ping
I've long felt the 17th Amendment needs repeal as much as did Prohibition.
I was educated to this in high school by a perceptive history teacher way back in '63. Haven't heard anything about it from anyone else since though I mention it whenever it seems apropriate. My childhood lib buddy says it is terribly fscist to think this way. Oh well, he has to make his success in academe.
Never heard this before. Do you get your historical info from the same source as your bad economic info?
Would the legislature of NY have selected Hillary Clinton, the buffoon from Arkansas's wife?
BTT!
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.