"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.
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.)
With repeal of the 17th amendment it would make recalling your Senator much easier.
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 . . . ).
Nope.
Repeal of the 17th would go a long way into making all politics local again.
"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.
I’ve been in support of repealing the 17th Amendment for a long time now.
Repeal the 19th Amendment.
Absolutely!
That would be the very first step (framework wise) to begin restoring some semblence of the former Republic.
At least one immediate result would be the restoration of the true meaning of the 10th...
While people’s confusion on this issue is understandable and thats why i urge caution in efforts to get it done. We need to have a talk about the senate and the reason behind its existence as it is distinguished from the house before we move on to our discussion about the repeal of the 17th amendment.
It is absolutely vital for people to understand the function of the senate before they judge the merits of our proposal.
This is not about not trusting the people with the senate this is about the basic function of the senate in our Federal system, and the inehirt power-interest of our State legislators driving them to support only senators that look after their power.
To be frank it is what you might call the corruption of our State legislators that works in in our favor in terms of fulfilling the function of the senate which is to help keep the Federal Government from intruding upon the domain of the States.
The basic thing people need to understand about the function of the senate is that unlike the house and the presidency its not so much about politics as it is about the structure of our Federal system of government.
I am all for repealing that curse of an amendment. This article, though, lost me when the author stated....
“The notion that somehow having the state legislatures choose Senators is more representative of the state’s interest than having the voters of the state choose the Senator is odd on its face”
I hate to tell the “professor” but our founding fathers gave the people a voice already...it’s called the House of Representatives. Why on earth would you give the people of a state TWO houses? The House was designed to give the people a voice and the Senate was designed to give the states a voice. We have utterly obliterated any resemblance of a republic that every existed in this country.
I would like to see county governments appoint State Senators. That way, good ideas from citizens need have a far better chance of getting to the US Senator, as one need only convince the county supervisor of their validity, instead of being one among millions. For certain, Baker vs. Carr must be overturned.
I don’t see how he don’t recognize the propensity of legislators(politicians) to protect and advance their own power, even when that protection may go against the current will of the people.
For example: The state may want money for various things from the Federal Government as that money inevitably comes form other States. Whereas the people might not care so much in exactly how that money is spent and thus their inclined to let the Senators indulge themselves and their political fancy dictating to the State how to spend the Federal Money. the State legislator on the other hand will care as they will want the money given to them with little or no strings attached so that they may choose how it spend that money.(Thus more practical autonomy for each region and less corrupting vote buying power for Washington D.C.).
By placing the senate in the hands of the State legislators as the Founding Fathers places it, we help to make it more likely that the Senate will be elected to preform its basic constitutional function of protecting the power and autonomy from Federal intrusion.
It won’t cure all our problems but it will help slow the bleeding.
The industrialization excuses for the centralization of power is largely a farce the state is just as capable of deciding how to regulate industries as the federal government and with only minor federal help in enforcing those rules to prevent flight, we can have something closer to the best of both worlds.
Instead what we have right now is a Federal government that cares little for the autonomy and self-determination of our states, as the people vote for them as if they were 1 big government rather then 50 smaller competing States.
Of course this comes from another pointy headed intellectual douchebag. I bet if he understood the Constitution he would know why the 17th needs to go!
A condescending essay that does not state the argument against the 17th well, and leads with emotional attacks.
Net out: This is not an opponent or opposition piece that is worth of further discussion. File under “Arguments by Idiots”.
IMO, this should be the next mission of the Tea Party. The 27th Amendment silenced to voice of the State in federal government.
Sans the 17th, Obamacare never makes it to the floor of the Senate.