Posted on 08/09/2017 1:28:17 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Former Governor Mike Hucakbee and Col. Allen West believe it could.
Gov. Huckabee pointed out in a tweet last week that repealing the 17th Amendment, which instituted the popular election of Senators, would ensure that Senators work for their states and respect the 10th Amendment.
"Time to repeal 17th Amendment," he said on July 28th. "Founders had it right-Senators chosen by state legislatures. Will work for their states and respect 10th amid."
Col. Allen West made a similar point in a much longer piece on his website:
Imagine if those GOP senators who blocked the repeal of Obamacare could be recalled by their state legislatures! If they could be subjected to a vote of “no confidence” and be removed! How differently would these senators act? Or any senator? It would certainly preclude the arrogance and defiance of what has become a very lucrative club — not of citizen servants but of those who believe their political position entitles them to lord over us with no retribution, enabling them to become career politicians.
Yes, I believe it’s time to talk about the 17th Amendment, for people to understand what it is, and why we changed the original vision of Madison, Hamilton, and Jay. Our U.S. Senate is not a House of Lords, albeit they tend to believe they are. Yes, the 17th Amendment gave the state’s governors the power to appoint a replacement, until a special election occurs or until the next election cycle. But it’s time we assess the repeal of the 17th Amendment, and give state legislatures the ability to elect, and recall, their senators. I just have to ask, if the 17th Amendment didn’t exist, would Arizona, Maine, Alaska, West Virginia, and a few others be looking to replace their current senators?
(Excerpt) Read more at conventionofstates.com ...
Huckabee and West are “huge names”?
I and a number of Freepers her have been calling for repeal of the 17th for a loooong time. Add the 16th and the 19th to that and we may have a framework for reclaiming the Republic.
My wife is the one who convinced me that the 19th was at least as bad as the 17th. I had not really believed the 19th was okay but had been uncomfortable with the thought of dissing the ladies. Now I have heard from several women saying what wife said and a female cousin who is very “progressive” saying how wonderful the 19th is because it is responsible for the advance of Progressivism. Women are biologically predisposed to prefer security and protection for themselves and their children and in the aggregate will vote that way. Freedom and independence are relatively not so important. As marriage declines in frequency and in permanence that predisposition is reflected in the vote more and more. Women increasingly vote for a husband substitute and for someone to make everyone “be nice.”
Repealing the 17th Amendment gives the States back representation in the Congress as States. The 17th turned the states into provinces and eliminated the different interests of the different States as having any effect on legislation or in preventing legislation.I would much rather take my chances with the States as a buffer against an all powerful Central Government.
Restoring true representation to the House of Representatives is vital to the future of the constitution. State election of senators should then provide a limiting effect, a check, on the mob that would be running the House.
Those three made the Total Managerial State inevitable. The 16th and 17th set the framework and the 19th guarenteed theat the interests of women in security and protection would become paramount.
Luckily, Republicans hold power in most of the states, for the time being. If the majority of state legislatures and governorships were controlled by Democrats, I don't think it would be a good idea to repeal the 17th.
What we’ll get are senators out to please their employers.
Yes. Horrid, at-large, statewide politicians. The nature of their appointment is unsuited to their Constitutional duties.
I vaguely recall googling the topic some years ago. There is plenty of info. The 16th and 17th were, at the time, the Progressives’ dream come true. All subsequent abuses of our Constitution down to this day flow from the 17th.
Exactly. The current 1:720,000 ratio of reps to citizens is awful. Start off by doubling membership in the House.
Since almost all states had direct election of senators by the time the 17th passed, it gets too much blame. Repealing the 17th is still an essential step though.
Yes, I did mean the 18th. Thanks for the gentle correction! In my defense, it was very early in the morning...
First time I've read of this. Can you suggest a good source for more info on how this worked since the Constitution specified selection by the state legislature? TIA...
Apparently it was in response to blatant corruption and the purchasing of senate seats in some states. So they pushed through the 17th Amendment and now Senate seats are bought in a different fashion.
Ask why the Lincoln-Douglas Debates were held across Illinois in 1858.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/amendments/17/essays/178/popular-election-of-senators
...By 1912, Senators were already picked by direct election in twenty-nine of the forty-eight states...
...What happened is that the people in most of the states gradually turned to nonbinding primary elections to select their Senator; state legislators promised to vote for the Senator that the people had selected in this “advisory” election...
[Another, Leftist, source actually details some of the problems]:
...Between 1890 and 1900, no fewer than fourteen Senate seats remained vacant because of legislative deadlock. In Oregon in 1897, the State House was so badly split over the Senate vacancy that it never convened at all...
Read the papers by George Mason Law School professor Todd Zywicki at this thread from 2010, especially this one.
-PJ
Thanks for the quick reply. The quoted part above is kind of what I suspected was going on and have never heard discussed in any history or political science class. I'll dig deeper with further searches but your initial info is greatly appreciated.
Ping and a question for LS - is this subject a matter you've ever looked into in your academic/publishing career?
Truly a bad year.
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.