Posted on 01/04/2011 4:11:17 PM PST by neverdem
The short answer to the question above is: Yes.
Here is the back story. The elections this past November were truly historic for those who love freedom. The Tea Party, a grassroots libertarian insurgency cobbled together from disaffected Republicans and libertarians, managed not only to strike fear into the Establishment, but actually to throw off the Establishment's hand-picked candidates in favor of those supporting limited government. The Republicans were able to ride this wave, taking control of the House and achieving a filibuster-positive number in the Senate. What many voters may not have known, though, is that if the Constitution we cherish were still in its original form with respect to the Senate, they would never have been able to vote for Rand Paul or Marco Rubio, and that would have been a good thing.
The 17th Amendment to the Constitution, which provides for the direct popular election of senators, was enacted in 1913, at the height of the Progressive Era. Originally, the Constitution had provided for state legislatures to appoint U.S. senators, a realistic reflection that the Constitution was a compact of sovereign states. It meant that senators would not be focused on public campaigning; they could do what they were elected to do. They would represent the interests of the states that sent them -- not the people in the states, but the states as sovereign entities.
The Founding Fathers' original intent in providing for indirect election of senators was to place a strong check on the power of the federal government. At the federal table, the people were to be represented by the House of Representatives, the nation as a nation was to be represented by the president, and the states as sovereign entities were to be represented by the senators whom the states sent to Washington...
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
The small states deserve equal representation in the Senate, but not disproportinate power, which is what they now enjoy. If each Senator is representing their state as a soverign, then the system makes sense. In representing the people of their states, based on popular election, the system equates, for instance, Wyoming’s 500,000 people with California’s 36 million, which is a grossly unfair system of representation (irrespective of what we think of the values and policies of the people in those states).
If you people want "recall" you'll need an amendment for it. Most likely you can't get the Eastern States to adopt it.
Yes!
Actually, what he's arguing (somewhat correctly IMO) is that the device defined in the constitution wasn't followed. The one thing that Article V of the constitution says can't be amended is equal representation for the States in the Senate.
SecondAmendment wrote:
Judge Nepolitano jumps the shark with this one by arguing that amending the constitution via a device defined in the constitution is unconstitutional.
Any other amendment is OK, but you can't change the Senate using the article V amendment process.
The problem with this is that the courts rule that the States are still represented, it's just the method to choose the Senators that changed.
I assure you that once your typical Congresscritter was no longer subject to the sort of scrutiny being on the federal payroll brings he or she would be back working for the Mob ~ just like before.
I assure you that once your typical Congresscritter was no longer subject to the sort of scrutiny being on the federal payroll brings he or she would be back working for the Mob ~ just like before.
I agree. Direct elections of Senators became Constitutional when our Republic decided it was a good enough idea to amend our Constitution over, and utilized the provided mechanism.
Election of Senators via State Legislatures will be Constitutional again when our Republic decides that it is a good enough idea to AGAIN utilize the provided mechanism.
Arguing that using the Constitution to change the Constitution is Unconstitutional is ski-boating in a leather jacket and approaching the ramp.
FAIL!
Look people, as much as some folks may not like the 17th amendment (and I’m not a big fan myself), the fact of the matter is that amending the Constitution MAKES something constitutional - period. That’s why the Constitution was made so hard to amend, so that it couldn’t be done flippantly and spuriously (very often).
The Wilson administration, as I remember, felt the progressive movement was being kept from advancement by “bought and paid for” Senators. They claimed railroads and other large interests bought state legislative votes to get their man installed.
There were some instances where that may have been the case. The cure however is worse.
Corruption finds power like water flows downhill.
Legislation cant change than, Constitutional Amendments don’t phase it. It would be nice if our Legislature were not full time fund raisers to meet the needs of our “I watch TV commercial to decide the political future of our nation” public - but that at least is kind of above the board corruption.
You say you are for corn ethanol subsidies, they pay you lots of money via “donations for your campaign”, you vote for billions of dollars to burn up nearly half our corn and everybody knows you are the Senator from Archers Daniels Midland, and might suspect you have Presidential ambitions.
This is the fate of our modern Republic.
But it is still the best damn system going. Not saying much, but we can at least say that! :)
Spurious means false, not frequent.
But yes, I agree with your point 100%. Amending the Constitution makes it constitutional. And it was made hard to amend so that it would not be done flippantly or frequently, with time for deliberation and to find out spurious reasoning (hopefully) and certainly not for light and transient causes.
Plus they would be subject to recall by the state. :)
Yes, and I meant it that way. One of the protections afforded by the rigourous amendment process was against the document being easily changed under false pretense or because people were "snookered" into doing so.
But no matter.
I think you would prefer my method ~ one term, one time, and then you are taken out and executed.
Whatever you can steal in the meantime is yours to keep.
There'd be no lack of highly capable candidates for public office.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
So, a Constitutional amendment, no matter how much we disagree with it or it may oppose the original intent of another clause, is Constitutional unless it violates the equal protection to the States clause. IE, it may not be right, but it is technically Constitutional until in as such time, the citizens or government follow the Constitutional process to amend it out of there.
Ramon| 1.4.11 @ 8:50AM Repealing the 17th Amendment would be nice. However, given that it has become a part of our political tradition I don't think that will happen. Virginia has proposed an amendment which would allow a vote by 2/3 of the state legislatures to nullify any federal law or ruling by the Supremes. This would hobble the Federal Colossus nicely. It certainly would end the "flyover" status of most states. I am certain if this amendment is enacted, Obamacare (and many other abominations) will vanish like fog before a strong breeze. Amend to defend!
Why bother? It's irrelevant.
America -- a great idea, didn't 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.