Posted on 05/29/2012 7:37:58 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
ST. LOUIS — U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, R-Wildwood, a candidate for U.S. Senate from Missouri, provided a new twist on a recent argument when he said during a Friday debate he would favor repealing the 17th Amendment.
That 1913 addendum to the U.S. Constitution allows state voters to elect U.S. senators rather than having state legislatures appoint them.
“I’m very concerned about states’ rights, and if I were to lean one way or the other it would be leaning going back to repeal,” Akin said during a debate sponsored by Springfield television station KY3.
The repeal of the 17th Amendment and elimination of other laws that move power from states to the federal government are issues advocated by the tea party movement and other far-right conservatives.
The issue came to the national forefront in 2010, with some Republicans advocating a Repeal Amendment to give state legislatures more power. Some Virginia GOP Senate candidates said they were not interested in eliminating the 17th Amendment during a recent debate in Roanoke.
Calling himself a “strong conservative,” Akin said he has “a very serious concern about erosion of states’ rights and reversing this decision might pull that balance back.”
Akin’s two main rivals in the GOP race — John Brunner and Sarah Steelman — said that while they agreed too much power has migrated to the federal government, they were in favor of keeping the 17th Amendment in place.
Supporters say the amendment reduces corruption by reducing the influence of state legislators and gives more power to the public. Opponents say allowing legislatures to pick senators would make them more accountable to their states and reduce the number of unfunded mandates handed down by Congress.
Geez — for the umpteenth time: only people have rights; State Governments have powers not specfically reserved to the Federal Government AND those powers are derived from the consent of the governed.
This is necessary to return the power to the States and the People...
Concur, and the sooner the better.
How on Earth does one educate the masses on this when it will be portrayed as “undemocratic?”
Personally, I think that it should be repealed. State governments have been run over by the Feds since the 17th was adopted.
How long before the Dems try to do away with the much ignored 10th?
Not a bad idea, although repealing the 16th would be far more effective.
States have whatever powers we the people of our States decide to give them in the State Constitution. Just the same as in regard to the Federal constitution with the exception that the Federal union is that of 50 States not 300+ million people.
The 17th ammedment upset the balance of power designed to help keep the Federal Government in it’s Constiutional box by making Federal Senators direct Representative of the population(like the house) rather than repesnatives of the State power interest.
Why is that important? Its quite simple, for any system of checks and balances to work both sides have to have a constant interest in preserving its own terf against the intrusion of the other. The U.S. Senate was quite explicitly desigend to help the States do that whereas the presdinecy, house, and federal judiciary formed a “counter balance”.
At least that is how some of the federalist framers claimed it would work. In reality, as one might expect the senates long 6 year term left its members somewhat more comfortable in office. while the powers of the senate amounted to little more than a occupationally effective Veto.
Washington Still grew usurping more and more powers & money from the people and their state
But still as we have witnessed after 1913 the system as designed was 100 times more effective at slowing the progress of the Federal encroachment that having no distinct senate at all.
So by all means I insist upon repealing and/or abolishing the 17th amendment.
Please oh please oh please repeal the 17th
The masses are asses, esp since universal suffrage. I'll take my chances with 30 or so corrupt pols compared to 10,000,000 low information voters.
Doesn’t sound good to me.
Why empower the politicians (”state legislatures”) even more?
Why are many of you so happy for this?
Can’t you see the basis for ‘cronyism’ even more. That a bunch of “Legislature” Politco-Honchos, like a powerful Speaker of the State House, and his counterpart in the State Senate, will sway a majority to go whomever they want to send to WA DC?
Am I missing something here, or is it just because it’s a “GOP” senator calling for this, that’s making others jump in on this bandwagon?
This is terrific: The best argument is to list the average incomes of members of the US Senate (most are very wealthy).
Next list the average cost of running a statewide Senate campaign in a large state such as CA, TX, or FL (off the charts). People spend tens of millions of their own money in LOSING campaigns.
The 17th intentionally pushes the goal posts so far down the field that only the elite can play the game.
The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. The 17th subverts their clear intentions.
Repeal 17th!
I would describe it the same way I describe it here. The tenth amendment is the only way to declare a truce in the culture civil wars going on in this country today. One side is not going to vanquish the other any time soon, but liberal states and conservative states can live together in one country peacefully, if they are allowed to run their own states as they see fit.
The states used to elect senators, who then could act on behalf of their states as a check on unlimited federal power. Repealing the 17th amendment would work to restore checks and balances between states and the federal government.
He’s absolutely correct.
That'll work! NOT!
The only remaining question in Missouri is Steelman or Brunner.
Question - was the 17th Amendment ever actually, legally, and truthfully ratified? Evidence seems to point to “no” - between the states that took on themselves a rewording of it, states that never even voted on it, and where there is doubt that a vote was ever taken (when results were assumed before a vote was ever taken in some cases)...
I am against democracy and for a republic, but that said the 17th Amendment has made the Internet a sales tax free marketplace. Repealing it may very well undo all that tax liberty, which also limits the sales tax raising ability of state governments even on businesses within their borders - the “brick and mortar” stores.
On May 12, 1912, the Seventeenth Amendment, providing for direct popular election of the Senate, was approved by the Congress; the requisite three-fourths of the state legislatures ratified it in less than eleven months. Not only was it ratified quickly, but it was also ratified by overwhelming numbers. In fifty-two of the seventy-two state legislative chambers that voted to ratify the Seventeenth Amendment, the vote was unanimous, and in all thirty-six of the ratifying states the total number of votes cast in opposition to ratification was only 191, with 152 of these votes coming from the lower chambers of Vermont and Connecticut.
- From Heritage.org
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/17/essays/178/popular-election-of-senators
No more than judges who have lifetime appointments. Senators are the ones who used to be able to stop popular, yet bankrupt, irresponsible spending. This is good because Congress has no discipline in usurping state powers/ upholding the 10th Amendment, nor when it Comes to handing out free stuff to a public that can’t stop itself from voting for weasels who promise them everlasting security. Also, New York’s legislature would never have picked Hillary the carpetbagger. Read about Madison’s thoughts about the Senate and it’s purpose.
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.