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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
BTT!
I couldn't agree more with this article. The states have lost all their power over the federal government and no longer have any say in what goes on. If we would repeal the 17th Amendment it would make the average person more involved in state politics which plays an even bigger role in our day to day lives.
Great article. The states have to hire lobbyists to represent thier interest in Washington just like Big OIL, the Truckers Union and Big Tobacco and have to stand in line with all the other special interest lobbyists.
We have the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) and the National Governors' Association (NGA)among others.
If things went back to the way our founding fathers intended, I bet there would never be another "unfunded mandate".
That dubious honor goes to the 14th Amendment.
Courts have said as much on more than one occasion:
---------
"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
(Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383).
______________________________________________________________________
"... a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that `citizen' means `citizen of the United States,' and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State ..."
U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542:
______________________________________________________________________
14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel 20 NC 122:
"... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government."
______________________________________________________________________
U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."
______________________________________________________________________
U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794:
"The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"
If we went back to the original way, Rhode Island would be sending Pol Pot, Mao or someone even worse to the Senate.
bump from a rabid anti-17th amendment person
Amen...Repeal the 17th.
But nothing in the current state of affairs will change. We have come to accept being lectured to and ruled by this self-serving House of Lords.
Two other things happened in 1913 that were just as devistating; The founding of the Federal Reserve System, and the Income Tax.
If you wanted to pick a single point out in our history that would signal the beginning of the end of freedom in this country it is those three acts.