Posted on 11/17/2017 5:51:31 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Yes, XVII is an abomination, but until the repeal people come up with a counter to “They want to take your right to vote away”, repeal is a fantasy.
The 17th can be effectively neutered by adjusting campaign finance laws restricting donations to in state people and organizations only.
The language of such a law needs to be tight and zero in on abuse and the onus of verifying donations must encumbered upon the Candidate and the Local/State GOP.
Once you restrict campaign donations to in state entities only, you do away with rich hollywood types donating to DNC candidates in Texas or Florida.
Repealing the 16th wouldn’t eliminate income tax. It would merely restrict what type of incomes could be taxed.
Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendment to repeal the 17th, called Restoring the Senate in his book, includes a provision in which a legislature can recall a Senator by a 2/3 vote.
1. You can make sure the state legislatures aren’t necessarily dominated by urban elites by overturning the Reynolds v. Sims “one man, one vote” SCOTUS decision. That way, you could make one house of a legislature geographic, that is have the Senators or Representatives evenly distributed by county, for example. So when they appoint the Senators, you wouldn’t have two Illinois Senators who basically represent Chicagoland or two Maryland Senators who basically represent Balmer-Montgomery-PG.
2. You can overturn the 1866 law that required a prospective Senator to get a majority vote in each house of a legislature, instead of a plurality, which would naturally be not as encouraging to corruption and vote-buying.
3. The recall provision, in which a legislature can recall a Senator by a 2/3 vote, with said supermajority meant to ensure the Senate stays a stable, continuous body as intended.
4. Term limits to avoid filthy career politicians.
I wonder if the movement for the 17th amendment had been stalled for one more decade, would technology have overtaken the feudalism?
In 1913, electrification (electric grid) was just coming online as utilities emerged. Henry Ford's Model T debuted five years earlier. The first New York to San Francisco Bell telephone call was still two years away. United States entry into World War I was four years away.
If the 17th were tried to be passed in 1923 (post-WWI), would the impetus for it have waned, and the states busted out of the post-Reconstruction feudalism?
-PJ
“Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendment to repeal the 17th, called Restoring the Senate in his book, includes a provision in which a legislature can recall a Senator by a 2/3 vote.”
great minds think alike
That’s a good question. I still don’t understand how it passed at all.
It was no different when Senators were elected by the state legislators.
The drive for popular election came about because special interests were buying off legislatures to get Senators that would do their bidding. The expectation was that popular election would change this, but as we can see it hasn’t changed it much.
Today's senate is an institution without a purpose beyond reelection of its members. Thanks to popular election, members serve for decades. They didn't prior to 1913.
As history has shown, pre-17th Amendment senators didn't consent to anti-10th Amendment judges. Repeal of the 17A will slowly reform the Federal Judiciary.
As for state legislatures, thank the Scotus decision Reynolds v. Simms for democratizing state senates in 1964. See Progressing the Constitution - One Man One Vote.
All good things are possible with repeal of the 17A, and impossible without. As Freeper Zeneta wrote, "The only path to repeal is by Article V, and even that will/is a huge task."
Yes, Article V. There is no other peaceful path to reform of our corrupted institutions.
Good grief, but you truly do not know what you are talking about.
At ArticleVBlog.com, I'm on the thirteenth post that charts deliberation at the Federal Convention over the question of how to structure the senate.
Read them, and you'll find that it was thought out correctly.
Article V - 17th Amendment ping!
Does anyone actually think that without the 17th Amendment, Luther Strange would not continue to be the junior senator from Alabama?
sorry that has no context.
The 17th was passed by the Senate only when the States were nearing an article V convention.
And yes, if you’re responding to my thought that it wasn’t thought out correctly vis-a-vis out of state campaign donations, then yes. It wasn’t thought out correctly.
Or are you insisting that out of State campaign donations to another states senatorial campaign has had a positive effect on the Senate?
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.