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.
A distinction without a difference.
Are you a lawyer?
“There is no power granted to states . . ..??
From whence this sovereign “power granted to states?”
Who created a federation of sovereign states, called the United States of America? The states preceded the federation, which was collectively created by the states, they having first been created by the collective will of the people.
Sure there’s a difference. A new amendment has to go through the whole process.
Repeal the 17th and the 16th amendments! Restore the original power of the _sovereign_states_; please. It is the only hope for USA. The states are responsive to their citizens and have the power to state up to the _District_
Of course politicians want to pick their guys. Isn’t that what they did with cochran vs Daniels?
No. Merely someone who read the story.
Well it's good to know that there are no more important matters for the Indiana legislature to take up.
Which he admits. The point is to get this topic on the collective radar screen, and this is a good way to do it, IMHO.
True, but I don’t think most people care. I only discovered the significance of the impact of the 17th amendment a couple of years ago and I’m a political wonk. Most people will ignore this.
Sorry, ever since I realized that Obama is not the problem - the electorate is - I saw the writing on the wall for the future of the US. It will have to affect a LOT of people personally in a STARKLY negative way before anything changes.
And by a LOT, I mean tens of millions. And by personally, I mean it happens to them, not somebody else. By starkly, I mean lose their home or a family member because of it, or death, starvation, etc. Words won’t work. They will only respond (react is more like it) to actual personal events. And it has to happen to a LOT of them.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So when the anti-constitutional Progressive Movemnent tricked citizens who didn’t understand the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers into pressuring their state lawmakers to ratify the 17th Amendment, the states were then at the mercy of corrupt, popularly-elected federal senators who voted to pass constitutionally indefensible House appropriations bills, bills which Congress couldn’t justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers. So corrupt Congress was free to start making constitutionally indefensible laws which stole both state powers and state revenues associated with those laws.
So the states cannot experiment their own social spending programs as the Founding States had likely intended because corrupt Congress is stealing state revenues indirectly by means of constitutionally indefensible federal taxes.
Are we having fun yet? 8^P
Ping. It’s only political theater, but it may start a discussion.
This statement: “Until the 17th Amendment was ratified a century ago, senators weren’t elected directly, but by state legislatures.” I believe to be a misrepresentation.
Original wording was: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,...
The State legislatures then determined the method of chosing - some were direct legislature votes,some were one house/some both houses, some were popular votes, depending upon what the state legislature decided.
It’s nitpicky I know.
He is trying to help get the discussion going.
I know I’m a little late to comment about this but since I have taken up this issue as part of my presidential campaign, and because I live in Indiana I thought my comments might help. First, the snide comments about why anyone would want to rescind this amendment just shows that it is those people, not Senator Smith that don’t know history.
The 17th amend was ratified by...well, Senators. Why would they want to change the way our Founders’ set up our government? What was happening is that since Senators were elected by State legislatures, those same legislatures also had the power to recall a Senator if the legislature believed the Senator wasn’t voting in the State’s best interests. These recalls were not only annoying to Senators “power”, but sometimes a state would go for a time without a Senator while the legislature voted on who to send next. So, as Senator Smith correctly outlines, the 17th amend broke our government.
Originally, the government was set up much like the U.K. parliament, but with a president instead of a prime minister; a president that did not require a coalition to govern. The vice president didn’t even need to be of the same party/ticket. See Lincoln/Johnson. The Senate and Congress would act much like the House of “Lords” and the House of “Commons”. That is, the Senate was designed to represent the interests of the States — not the people of the state, but the government of each state. Whereas the Congress is to represent the people directly. Again, the 17th amend broke this balance. You now have two houses that are basically redundant. Why do we need a Senate and a Congress? What are they balancing? They often simply balance the parties and act as a party vs party mechanism. Our government wasn’t even designed to be party driven.
Further, there is no longer any state government representation. Senators often promise the people this or that and then once elected, the politicians do their own thing. Before, at least the state government could recall them. Now the federal government can and does impose things upon a state and the state has little to no recourse, no representation.
The 17th amend has nothing to do with fixing “corruption” or wealthy white slave-owning aristocrats (that guy is watching too much Annie or Shirley Temple movies). The 17th amend was passed by Senators so they could be free of threat of recall. It was a coup. It really has broken our governmental system. I guess the Senators feel it is easier to dupe the people to elect and reelect and reelect them over and over instead of having to deal with their state possibly recalling them for being an idiot. — check out rodericke.com
ping to #34
I agree 100%.
Secondly, ratification of the 17th was accomplished by state legislatures, not US senators.
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.