Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BLANKLEY: To re-empower our states (repeal the 17th Amendment)
The Washington Times ^ | January 26, 2010 | Tony Blankley

Posted on 01/26/2010 4:11:17 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

As I was preparing to write a column on the ludi -crous maligning of the Tea Party movement by liberals, Democrats and the mainstream media (which I hope to write next week instead) I started thinking about one of the key objectives of the Tea Party people - the strict enforcement of 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.").

As an early-1960s-vintage member of the then-new conservative movement, I remember us focusing on the 10th Amendment during the 1964 Goldwater campaign. It has been a staple of conservative thought, and the continued dormancy of 10th Amendment enforcement has been one of the failures of our now half-century-old movement.

But just as the Tea Party movement seems in so many ways to represent the 2.0 version of our movement, so I again thought about the 10th Amendment anew. After about 10 seconds' thought, it struck me that the best way to revive the 10th Amendment is to repeal the 17th Amendment - which changes the first paragraph of Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution to provide that each state's senators are to be "elected by the people thereof" rather than being "chosen by the Legislature thereof."(As I Googled the topic, I found out that Ron Paul and others have been talking about this for years. It may be the only subject that could be proposed and ratified at a constitutional convention with three-fourths of the state legislatures.)

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; 17thamendment; repeal; statesrights; teaparty; teapartyrebellion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-114 next last

1 posted on 01/26/2010 4:11:17 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 3D-JOY; abner; Abundy; AGreatPer; Albion Wilde; AliVeritas; alisasny; ALlRightAllTheTime; ...

PING!


2 posted on 01/26/2010 4:12:11 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Don't eat your dog; eat obnoxious, liberal humans to save the planet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I can’t even begin to conceive of the howls of outrage if this were to be seriously proposed. At a time when the Electoral College is under attack for not being “democratic” I don’t see how this could get any traction. Anywhere.


3 posted on 01/26/2010 4:14:29 AM PST by saganite (What happens to taglines? Is there a termination date?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saganite

Sad but true. We’re fortunate to still have the electoral college. I shudder to think what this country would be like without it.


4 posted on 01/26/2010 4:17:50 AM PST by tgusa (Gun control: deep breath, sight alignment, squeeze the trigger ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I’ve been saying similar things to what Tony Blankley said in this article for years. The 16th and 17th amendment are two of the most egregious amendments there are. They both need to be repealed. He rightly points out that this erosion started in the Civil War.

Where I disagree with him is when he contends that the federal government does not have the duty to protect our civil or natural rights. These rights come from our creator and the federal government has two duties in regards to it. One is to enumerate them so that everyone knows their natural rights, hence the BOR. The other is to protect it’s citizens against the abuse of our natural rights. If the state will not do that (as in the case of the Southern States during reconstruction), then I believe it is the duty of the Federal government to step in and protect our natural rights. Some of the first gun control laws were those enacted as part of the “Black Codes” after the Civil war designed to keep blacks as quasi slaves.


5 posted on 01/26/2010 4:25:05 AM PST by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saganite

The problem is that the true genius of our system of government, the checks and balances everywhere is not properly taught in our schools or properly understood by our citizenry. I think Ben Franklin said it best in regards to this subject. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding whats for dinner. Republicanism is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.


6 posted on 01/26/2010 4:27:57 AM PST by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tgusa
Bloody, divided and in another CW.

LLS

7 posted on 01/26/2010 4:28:23 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (hussama will never be my president... NEVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tgusa

You might be surprised. I don’t know anyone who does not support this idea, although I confess that there a lot of people I don’t know.

Still, there is - to my knowledge - a solid constituency to push this along.


8 posted on 01/26/2010 4:28:30 AM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: saganite

Anything that will give politicians more power, in this case state legislators, will be pursued, cheered and embraced. This would be good for our individual liberties. Traction? Hell, the state legislatures will grease the skids.

And your inference that the statists will howl and gnash their teeth is correct. They represent 20% or less of the population. So, yeh, it would take much work and we’d need to fight their over-sized megaphone represented by the propaganda press. But overall, I believe it’s a winner and a fait accompli once the general population is properly educated.

The 10th amendment movement is picking up steam in state legislatures all across the country. Now is the time to start pursuing this.


9 posted on 01/26/2010 4:29:49 AM PST by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

Yup.


10 posted on 01/26/2010 4:29:53 AM PST by tgusa (Gun control: deep breath, sight alignment, squeeze the trigger ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

I’m all for it. The Tea Parties in VA are solidly behind the 10th Amendment initiative, which I believe just made it out of committee in our State Senate. Repeal of the 17th Amendment is another worthy target.


11 posted on 01/26/2010 4:34:00 AM PST by tgusa (Gun control: deep breath, sight alignment, squeeze the trigger ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I am all for repealing the 17th... 52% of Americans have proved that they cannot vote the right way... at least the Governors can appoint men and women that WILL REPRESENT THEIR STATE... NOT SPECIAL INTERESTS!

LLS

12 posted on 01/26/2010 4:36:03 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (hussama will never be my president... NEVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I am all for repealing the 17th... 52% of Americans have proved that they cannot vote the right way... at least the Governors can appoint men and women that WILL REPRESENT THEIR STATE... NOT SPECIAL INTERESTS!

LLS

13 posted on 01/26/2010 4:36:26 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (hussama will never be my president... NEVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I am all for repealing the 17th... 52% of Americans have proved that they cannot vote the right way... at least the Governors can appoint men and women that WILL REPRESENT THEIR STATE... NOT SPECIAL INTERESTS!

LLS

14 posted on 01/26/2010 4:36:27 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (hussama will never be my president... NEVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; Clemenza; rabscuttle385; Clintonfatigued; yongin; AuH2ORepublican; Impy; ...

Is Tony aware that if the 17th were repealed, you’d have nearly half the states (or more) in the country that would never elect a Republican Senator again because of permanent and obscenely Democrat majorities ? If the profoundly corrupt MA legislature elected Senators, Marcia (sic) Coakley would’ve beaten Scott Brown by a 90%-10% margin. Even in my state of TN, no Republican would’ve been elected to the Senate until this past year (since Reconstruction, 140 years).


15 posted on 01/26/2010 4:36:34 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tgusa
I shudder to think what this country would be like without it.

Ever seen the movie Idiocracy?

16 posted on 01/26/2010 4:36:36 AM PST by Michael Barnes (Call me when the bullets start flying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

Post #15. The legislatures would be electing them, an incredibly horrible idea.


17 posted on 01/26/2010 4:37:59 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: saganite

It took decades to repeal prohibition - not surprising given that the Founders deliberately instituted mechanisms that were slow and cumbersome.

I think it’s a great idea, and have from the time I first found out the original design the Constitution laid out for membership in the Senate. And if others think it would help at least in some degree to return the balance of power between the individual states and the feds, they should start laying the groundwork for a repeal movement now (primarily education at this point), because it will be a long march.


18 posted on 01/26/2010 4:40:44 AM PST by Stosh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
His argument that what bribery there is would be shifted to the local legislation misses what would really happen, which is, there would be bribery at BOTH the local and national levels. Although, if the repeal of the 17th amendment would allow the removal of a senator by the state he represents the added potential level of corruption would be more than mitigated by the increase in ability to rein in corrupt senators who are no longer representing the interests of the state. Additionally, he is correct that it's more likely that local bribes would be more likely rooted in state issues. Also, with another layer of potential bribery it would also potentially increase the costs of bribing a senator because one would have to not only bribe the senator but also be careful to watch how one does it so they wouldn't run afoul of the state's power structure.
19 posted on 01/26/2010 4:48:05 AM PST by highlander_UW (There's a storm coming - little kid at a Mexican gas station in The Terminator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Seems like a terrible idea....democrats control 27 state legislatures currently to 14 for Repubs. Eight are split.

It would give Dems permanent control of the Senate, and Scott Brown could never have happened.


20 posted on 01/26/2010 4:50:40 AM PST by A.Hun (Common sense is no longer common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-114 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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