Several years ago I predicted to myself that the Constitution will one day soon be ruled un-Constitutional. Sounds absurd, right? Just watch it happen.
This has been something that’s irritated me for a while now. There’s no need for a bicameral federal legislature if they’re representing the same interests. Most states don’t need a bicameral legislature either but all Nebraska have them.
Judge Nepolitano jumps the shark with this one by arguing that amending the constitution via a device defined in the constitution is unconstitutional.
If the 17th were repealed, enabling the Senate to again function as it was intended, there would be no need for gauze and dressing fixes like the “Repeal Amendment”.
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.
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!
Libertarian? Hey Andrew, No Labels!!! No, not that bunch ...
“Before 1913, if a senator were to assault state sovereignty, the people of that state were able to exert influence on the state legislature, which is held accountable every two years by a popular vote. The state legislature would be able to recall a senator immediately, thus sending a powerful message that those in the highest seats of federal power could be instantly dethroned.”
Judge Napolitano is surprisingly poorly informed. Never in the history of the USA has any member of the Senate or House of Representatives been recalled, and it is very doubtful that the recall statutes that currently exist would be upheld if they were ever utilized.
On the whole our state legislatures have been quite corrupt. There were nine cases brought before the US Senate alleging that Senate election by state legislators was due to bribery. Election deadlocks were common, and at one point Delaware had no senators for two years. By 1910 almost 2/3 of the states had called for a constitutional convention to propose direct election of senators, and Congress finally acted to propose direct election.
Repeal of the 17th amendment is an idea whose time will never come. What is needed are mechanisms for the states and people to directly overrule bad acts of Congress. If Switzerland could design such mechanisms, why can’t we?
Congress Must Lead, Not the Courts - Republicans cannot punt hard decisions to the judges. Upton, EPA & the courts
Obamacare Ends Construction of Doctor-Owned Hospitals
Anti-gun Advocates In Senate Seek Rules Changes
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.