Posted on 02/10/2015 9:45:33 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
An Indiana state senator wants to change the way US senators are elected.
Until the 17th Amendment was ratified a century ago, senators weren't elected directly, but by state legislatures.
Charlestown State Senator Jim Smith says the idea was to make senators responsive to their states‘ concerns.
He argues the switch to direct election has contributed to a shift in the balance of power from the states to the federal government.
Smith says it‘s separated senators from state concerns and made it harder to remove them.
"As the needs of the state of Indiana change," says Smith,"then we would essentially ask that our U.S. senators act in that manner."
Smith has introduced a resolution to rescind Indiana‘s ratification.
The measure wouldn't have any practical impact, even if all 50 states followed suit.
But Smith says it could start a debate over whether tor repeal the amendment.
He notes Indiana is at the forefront of a move to force a constitutional convention to discuss a balanced-budget amendment and questions of federal overreach, and says the resolution could generate momentum to get a repeal amendment on the agenda too.
The resolution had been set for a hearing this week, but Smith‘s pulled it while he tries to round up enough votes.
He better be careful. The national GOP doesn’t like anybody messing with the power structure.
Ask the last two GOP senate candidates from Michigan how fast the party threw them an anchor when they started that “crazy” talk.
Great idea in theory, but I don’t think the Constitution makes provision for “take-backs” when it comes to approving amendments.
He should read the Constitution. There is no process for revoking ratification of an amendment.
Repeal the 16th and the 17th Amendments
I agree with them in principle, but this is pure theater.
I’d be happy to do away with the statewide popular vote for senator and elect them by district.
There is no power granted to states to unratify Constitutional amendments. You can only reverse them through repeal amendments.
Prohibition was repealed, though, so the thing could be undone.
Sure it does. The 21st amendment, for example, was the repeal of the 18th.
It can be done, and I'm happy someone is finally trying to get the ball rolling on repealing the 17th.
XXVIII
Amendment XVII to this document is hereby rescinded
It needs to happen.
That’s not recinding ratification of an existing amendment. That’s ratifying a new amendment that revokes a prior one.
I remember when several states tried to rescind their ratification of the entire Constitution.
By passing a new amendment, the 21st, that repealed the existing 18th Amendment. But this guy is not proposing a new amendment to revoke the 17th, he's proposing to recind ratification of the 17th.
The federal government was created by the several sovereign states of the American union to serve certain legitimate purposes of government best executed collectively, the primary and most obvious such function being national defense.
But socialist collectivists have turned government upside down and inside out, seriously compromising our Grand American experiment in self-government by the people, and in the process making we the people dependent servants of government.
Sure it does.
Constitutional Amendment conventions by 2/3 of the states.
Its necessity is becoming more and more obvious.
My choice of an absolute new requirement (Amendment)?
An absolute requirement and testing to eliminate the bottom 5% of the IQ curve.
That was an absurd notion when the Republic was formed.
The number of elected national leaders at first was a logical assumption and the leaders were, in fact, knowledgeable and competent.
Over the years, and as the country has "evolved," that number has slowly been reduced to a minuscule number.
I would bet anything that the percentage of the incompetent elected national leaders now exceeds 75%. Might that be WHY that option was included in the original Constitution?
Assuming you are an educated, knowledgeable, engaged and sane individual, as a drill, make a list of the members of the existing National Legislative branches whom you believe to be functional imbeciles (in the clinical sense.)
And let's not conflate wealth with competence. Specially inherited or illegally obtained after achieving office.
It sounds like he knows that. The article clearly says the measure would have not practical effect. But he hopes to start a movement amongst the states that might lead to an actual repeal effort.
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.