Posted on 12/16/2010 1:04:46 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
A recent exchange between Sean Hannity and one of his listeners provides an opportunity to educate the public on the 17th amendment of the United States Constitution. Sean, defending the 10th amendment - which grants those powers not specifically delegated to the United States to the States respectively - did not agree with the caller’s wish to see the 17th amendment repealed, and seemed confused as to the amendment’s implications. The 17th amendment, for the edification of Sean, was enacted in the magical year, 1913 - the year that gave us the income tax and the Fed! - and stripped the power of state legislatures to elect Senators, delegating this duty to the people of each state, respectfully.
This damaged states’ rights and weakened the 10th amendment. As I stated in an e-mail:
Dear Sean—concerning the 17th amendment, the argument for its repeal absolutely centers around states’ rights. If Senators are elected by elected reps and senators, they are more likely to defend their state against federal encroachments (upholding the 10th amendment), than they are if elected by the general population. Any federal program - ObamaCare, the financial reform bill, etc., - which increases burdens on state budgets would not sit well with Senators answerable to congressional bodies in their state.
So, yes, the 17th amendment lacked foresight. As unprincipled Senators in all 50 states swagger about the Capitol, schmoozing with lobbyists and expanding government, it’s important to know why. On November 2, 2010, the People voted to defend the Constitution. But while all men are equal...
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
This stuff always cracks me up. One, that Hannity is so ignorant. And two, that anyone thinks the 17th amendment has anything to do with our troubles.
Yeah, I find that I can’t listen to him (on his radio show) for more than a few minutes at a time. Too much self-promotion (the Conservative Underground, indeed!), too few interesting insights. He likes to provoke guests and callers (especially) so that he call talk over them.
I was surprised at Hannity’s response on the 17th. The 17th destroyed the Republic as instituted by the founders. The States are forced to rely on what the SC can give them under the 10th (not much). Of course, the sweetest thing about the 17th is it did not pass and thus landed in the “do nothing about fraud” area where the gatekeepers are 9 black robed politicians. Madison put a fence there (requiring a unanimous vote for changing state suferrage in the Senate)and tyranny folks jumped lightly over it.
I was going to say exactly the same thing, lightbulb reference and all...
I can't for the life of me figure out why he's successful. Inarticulate, uninformed, unoriginal, and his most popular (judging by repeat frequency) "challenging" callers are screamingly illiterate blacks. "With great specificity"...
The original constitution held that Senators were selected by the state legislatures, not the 17th Amendment. The 17th Amendment’s ratification destroyed the federal structure, not its repeal, since is WAS NOT repealed. The 17th was the thing mandating popular election of Senators.
Hannity is ignorant. I stopped listening some time ago. I listen to Michael Medved (who can be tedious at times).
Hannity’s show is being dropped in Philadelphia. I wonder if others are starting to catch on that his show is nothing more than one long commercial interspersed with some ridiculous commentary and ranting. The only thing that saves Hannity is that he has some very good guests.
-does anybody seriously think that having the present day California or New York legislatures electing senators would be a great improvement?
Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa.
You are not only correct, but I knew you were correct BEFORE I wrote what I did, until an Alzheimers moment, during my writing, caused me to reverse the mandates of the Constitution, before and after the 17th amendment. Thanks for the correction.
On the original part, of WHY, federal senators were to be chosen by THEIR state’s legislature, I still say it was for the “federal” nature of one house of the federal legislature, to represent the states, as entities requiring their own direct representation in the federal government, and not the corollary effects that may have arisen from that method.
Wells considering this is Sean’s day job you’d think he would know this and or realize this.....
No he isn't. He's a moron.
He’s yet to figure out the proper usage of “me” and “I”.”
The man is more partisan than conservative.
If people think repealing the 17th amendment will solve anything, they only need look at the recent record of lame dumbass corrupt liberal nobodies who got appointed last term in the Senate to be proved wrong. We had 6 of them and if *any* of them were in the top half of ‘good senators’ I didnt notice.
They were dregs.
Burris in Illinois - a left liberal Obama rubber stamp, Blago appointed and a joke
Bennett in Co - appointed, now elected. What’s the difference.
Some left-liberal nobody from Delaware.
In Florida, Charlie Crist’s right hand man. Strong conservative? NOT! Marco Rubio is so much better ... yet Marco would not have been Senator under appointment system.
There you go. Repeal the 17th amendment and you’ll get the same group of smug political elitists, except it will be HARDER to get rid ofthem because they will be indirectly and not directly accountable to voters.
You’re citing Senators appointed by governors on the death of a sitting senator...not selected by state legislatures as per pre-17th Amendment guidelines.
Hey, where’s my courtesy ping?
Because chicks think he's cute.
Hannity reminds me of an old Bobcat Goldthwaite stand up bit when he talked about getting his SAT results. His score was in the bottom 5th percentile. He rationalized that if he was in a room of 100 people there would be four people dumber than him, and he mused, "I could be their leader!"
Of course, states like CA would appoint idiots like we have now Boxer and Feinstein. However, we turned 680 seats in the states in one election, the legislature is a far easier target than getting to pick the millionaires that buy the Senate seats. You can unseat a local pretty easily, but unseating a Senator requires huge sums of money.
Shirley, you must agree it is a contributing factor.
ROFL, that's awesome.
I have to agree with you.
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.