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

Skip to comments.

Repeal the 17th Amendment?
Outside the Beltway ^ | August 24 ,2010 | Steven L. Taylor

Posted on 08/25/2010 7:07:09 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I should start by acknowledging that repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment is hardly a mainstream issue and certainly not anything likely to come about (which is an understatement). However, the fact that there are people out there seeking its repeal is sufficient to garner comment, especially since said persons were significant enough within factions of the Tea Party movement to actually get some Senate candidates to state that they were in support of the repeal.

Further, every once in a while I will get a commenter who is favor a repeal, so it seems worth some discussion.

The proximate cause of this post is the following from TPMDC: Tea Party-Backed Repeal Of The 17th Amendment Gets Republicans Into Trouble

The “Repeal The 17th” movement is a vocal part of the overall tea party structure. Supporters of the plan say that ending the public vote for Senators would give the states more power to protect their own interests in Washington (and of course, give all of us “more liberty” in the process.) As their process of “vetting” candidates, some tea party groups have required candidates to weigh in on the idea of repeal in questionnaires. And that’s where the trouble starts.

To wit:

In Ohio, Steve Stivers — the Republican attempting to unseat Democratic Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy in the state’s 15th District — came under fire from Democrats when it was revealed he had checked the box saying he would repeal the 17th Amendment on a tea party survey (see question 11 here).


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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; 17th; 17thamendment; appointment; diversion; federalism; legislatures; ntsa; popularvote; repeal; selection; sideshow; teaparties
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

1 posted on 08/25/2010 7:07:12 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I’m in favor of repealing the 17th as well (why bother with a bicameral legislature if you keep it, anyway?) But the vast majority of people would have their eyes glaze over if you tried to explain why. (In brief: Prior to the 17th amendment, state governments had influence on federal legislation via the senators they appointed. This tended to undermine the tyrannical centralization of power that we’ve seen in the federal government in our lifetime, keeping political power more decentralized, local/grassroots in nature, and ultimately more subservient to the citizenry.)


2 posted on 08/25/2010 7:11:57 PM PDT by Liberty1970 (http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/lydiablievernicht)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

With repeal of the 17th amendment it would make recalling your Senator much easier.


3 posted on 08/25/2010 7:14:22 PM PDT by DHSMostWanted (Thankful the Founding Fathers committed Treason against the Crown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I agree with repealing the 17th. How the states let go of this power is unfathomable to me. It was a wholesale destruction of state powers and a huge leap in destroying states rights, which is what those advocating a powerful central government want (it’s easier to rule over the people that way . . . ).


4 posted on 08/25/2010 7:15:47 PM PDT by jeffc (One Big A$$ Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; BillyBoy; Impy

Nope.


5 posted on 08/25/2010 7:15:59 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Amber Lamps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I have advocated this for a long time, and take the opportunity to engage anyone in conversation that will listen.

Repeal of the 17th would go a long way into making all politics local again.

6 posted on 08/25/2010 7:17:28 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
The tea-party folks backing the 17th amendment repeal and Martha Coakley have something in common: they both want to overturn Scott Brown's election and let socialist government hacks put a Democrat crony in the seat for life, voice of the people be damned.

Who woulda thunk it? ;-)

7 posted on 08/25/2010 7:22:39 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

"How much am I bid for this man's senate seat? Do I hear an undersecretary position and $1,000,000? Ambassadorship and $1,500,000?"

I was far more eager to repeal the 17th before Blago was caught selling a seat in the Senate.

8 posted on 08/25/2010 7:23:37 PM PDT by KarlInOhio (Gun control was originally to protect Klansmen from their victims. The basic reason hasn't changed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeffc
The 17th amendment was part of the horrid "Progressive Era" that broke out after the turn of the century. The years from 1900 to 1920 were the most devastating to the American people of any twenty year period in our history. We will never recover what those idiot enthusiasts gave away back in the day.

Anyway, the specific reason as I understand it for the 17th amendment was to broaden democracy, and counter what had become a fairly corrupted process at the state level, where people could buy senatorial seats by bribing the legislature back home without the world finding out about it.

Somehow, fools like Teddy Roosevelt thought it would be cleaner if the scoundrels bribed "the people" directly.. Go figure.

Now, in the age of pervasive communication and news coverage, it would make good sense to restore the elements of federalism that were sacrificed back then, and strengthen the people by decentralizing power.

9 posted on 08/25/2010 7:26:23 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970
>> I’m in favor of repealing the 17th as well (why bother with a bicameral legislature if you keep it, anyway?) <<

Because congressional seats represent regional interest and senate seats represent geographic interests. In many states, it's vastly different when you look at their house delegation compared to their senate delegation. Both in the kind of people they elect and how many they elect. Hence South Dakota's elected officials have a lot more weight in the Senate than in the House, whereas Texas' elected officials have a lot more weight in the House than in the Senate. Michigan's Senate delegation is all liberal Democrat because Democrats outnumber Republicans statewide, whereas Michigan's house delegation is majority conservative Republican because there are large pockets of GOP areas around the state. And so on.

>> But the vast majority of people would have their eyes glaze over if you tried to explain why. <<

I understand the "reasons" given for repealing the 17th, and it only makes sense if you're in ALSO favor of repealing the 11th amendment as well so you can "go back to the original system the founders established" for electing the executive branch of government. In such a scenario, John McCain would become Obama's veep.

Are you?

10 posted on 08/25/2010 7:29:49 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard; Impy; fieldmarshaldj; Clintonfatigued
>> The 17th amendment was part of the horrid "Progressive Era" that broke out after the turn of the century. The years from 1900 to 1920 <<

Hickley buzzard, are you also in favor of abolishing recall elections, referendum votes, direct initative, term limits, and selecting party nominees by primary elections instead of closed-door party conventions? How about giving women the right to vote, are you against that?

All of these things became popular and were first enacted into law during the "progressive era". Are we to presume ALL of them are bad by default? Speaking for myself, I wish we had term limits and recall elections here in Illinois.

11 posted on 08/25/2010 7:36:08 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
You'll have to explain your rationale for claiming that anyone 'has' to favor repealing the 11th amendment if they oppose the 17th amendment. I simply don't see the connection.

You correctly point out that there are differences now between house and senate delegations (mostly due to gerrymandering), but miss the larger point that state governments have been transformed into powerless administrative provinces of the federal government, short of secession.

The 17th fails on its own merits - it's a century-old experiment, and its time to recognize it as a failure and end it before more damage is done.

12 posted on 08/25/2010 7:41:15 PM PDT by Liberty1970 (http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/lydiablievernicht)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

I concur. Repeal the 17th, and gives the STATES a voice in the satanic Fed.gov!


13 posted on 08/25/2010 7:56:46 PM PDT by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I’ve been in support of repealing the 17th Amendment for a long time now.


14 posted on 08/25/2010 8:14:58 PM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

It’s not a failure. By your methods, all you do is put half (or more) of the Senate seats out of permanent reach of electing Republicans. Direct elections ensure that EVERY state has a shot at doing so, including even Massachusetts (Brown’s election would never have occurred with a 90% Democrat legislature).


15 posted on 08/25/2010 8:15:24 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Amber Lamps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Repeal the 19th Amendment.


16 posted on 08/25/2010 8:18:08 PM PDT by familyop (cbt. engr. (cbt), NG, '89-' 96, Duncan Hunter or no-vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
You should read the articles by Todd Zywicki in this thread, Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment. Especially interesting is this one, Senators and Special Interests: A Public Choice Analysis of the Seventeenth Amendment.

It lays out the common reasons why the 17th passed, and then tries to disprove them by pointing out incongruities in the arguments, and then finally explains a market within the Senate for trading political votes based on longevity (the ability to back up the promise of future votes due to the guarantee of being there).

The bottom line is that the original system wasn't corrupt enough, which is why the 17th was passed -- to give Senators (as power brokers) the ability to promise to deliver legislation because of the guarantee of remaining in the Senate long enough to make good on trades for votes.

-PJ

17 posted on 08/25/2010 8:24:20 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too ("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Given the fact that the federal government has discarded the constitution as their operating document, what difference does one amendment or another make?
18 posted on 08/25/2010 8:24:30 PM PDT by highlander_UW (Education is too important to abdicate control of it to the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla
I’ve been in support of repealing the 17th Amendment for a long time now.

Me, too!

While we are still likely to end up with corrupt hacks in the Senate, at least they will be beholden to the interests of their own state.

As it is, money for senate campaigns come in throughout the country, and we end up with senators who are more beholden to Wall Street or the banks or the high-tech or medical industries.

No, we cannot escape corrupt politicians but we can at least try to direct their corruptness to our own states.

19 posted on 08/25/2010 8:24:30 PM PDT by Repealthe17thAmendment (Is this field required?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

“The bottom line is that the original system wasn’t corrupt enough, which is why the 17th was passed”

Well stated.

Repeal it.


20 posted on 08/25/2010 8:45:34 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Rules will never work for radicals because they seek chaos. And don't even know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-76 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