Posted on 08/13/2004 11:22:59 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
SPRINGFIELD - If Illinois voters elect Alan Keyes to the U.S. Senate, he'd prefer they not get another chance.
Keyes, a Maryland Republican who just moved to Calumet City for the campaign, supports returning to a system abolished nearly a century ago of letting state legislators pick U.S. senators rather than voters.
In fact, he's dubbed the constitutional amendment that switched to public election of senators one of the country's greatest mistakes, vowing in past campaigns to re-examine it if voters ever sent him to Washington, D.C.
"He does still support repeal of the 17th Amendment," Keyes campaign adviser Dan Proft said Thursday, but added it is "not near the top of his agenda."
"This is not to be a centerpiece item of his legislative agenda should he be elected," Proft added. He described it as an issue befitting debate in "the hallowed halls of academia" or a "PBS special."
Obama contends the switch to voters was good for democracy.
"I certainly trust the people of Illinois and other states to choose who they want to represent them in the U.S. Senate. That is the very basis of our democracy," Obama said. "I would hope that Alan Keyes would trust those voters too."
Before approval of the 17th Amendment in 1913, state lawmakers picked their U.S. senators. The amendment moved that power to the people. Illinois supported the switch.
Although his aides say it is not a top issue now, Keyes highlighted the topic in the past. During a discussion with a caller on the Feb. 19, 1999, episode of Keyes' radio program, he said the change ignored the fundamental difference the nation's founding fathers wanted between the U.S. House and Senate. Originally, the House represented the people, while the Senate was considered to represent state governments.
"And we changed that, disregarded that, and I think it's hurt us deeply," Keyes said, according to a program transcript.
The push in the late 1800s and early 1900s to publicly elect senators was provoked by lingering impasses at the state level to name senators and questionable appointments.
During one of his presidential bids, Keyes named the switch to public voting for senators as one of the federal government's biggest mistakes along with income taxes and the Federal Reserve Bank. A news account in the Riverside Press-Enterprise from a 1995 fund-raiser in California includes Keyes promising to re-examine those topics if elected.
Asked about the irony of the situation, Proft replied: "You run under the system that's in place."
Of course, if the old system was in place Keyes would be a political underdog. Democrats control the Illinois House and Senate.
Passage of the 17th Amendment was the primary reason we have moved from a representative republic to a socialist democracy.
Um, yes, it is. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
During one of his presidential bids, Keyes named the switch to public voting for senators as one of the federal government's biggest mistakes along with income taxes and the Federal Reserve Bank. A news account in the Riverside Press-Enterprise from a 1995 fund-raiser in California includes Keyes promising to re-examine those topics if elected.
Am I to believe that the reporter for the Daily Planet looked this up himself?
Or did he have any help from the DNC?
Or are they the same thing?
Quite right.
I gotta go with the Repairman here. I thought his original post was perfectly clear - the 17th amendment has had a horrible impact on our nation.
Repeal the 17th. The Senators should represent the interests of their state, not the millionaires who funded their campaign.
Yeah, Bob Byrd talks a good game now but see what would happen if he meal ticket was threatened.
The post in question implicated that a change in the current system would bring down the republic...
If I am in error, accept my appology...
No, the Republic was already in decline. This was just one of the final nails in the coffin.
This would be a good thing. Of course, 'conservatives' everywhere will rip Keyes for daring to suggest returning the government to the form the Founders intended. We wouldn't be able to cheer on 'our' side as if running the federal government was some sort of king of the hill game. If the 17th were overturned, what would Senators do? Why they would be left to the business of maintaining the national government instead of fighting over pork for their state and TV time for their ridiculous soundbites
These comments are from a 1999 radio show and a 1995 campaign appearance, info undoubtedly provided by the DNC.
Don't you fall for it too.
The good news is that this is apparently the worst that they can come up with. Obama wouldn't want to debate this with Keyes, but a snide little news article will serve his purposes.
I think the 17th amendment should be repealed. But of course I've given the matter more thought than could be inspired by this article.
Ever since the 17th Amendment, the large cities (e.g. - the Liberals) in each state are the ones who select our Senators. Us rural folks basically have no say because we are always outnumbered.
Repeal the 17th!
From the story that I quoted: "Keyes, a Maryland Republican who just moved to Calumet City for the campaign, supports returning to a system abolished nearly a century ago of letting state legislators pick U.S. senators rather than voters."
To which I commented: "Note that change corresponds with the beginning of the decline of the Republic."
I used the word "note" deliberately. I meant that as in "pay attention that that change (going from selection to direct election) corresponds with the beginning of the decline of the Republic."
Do you understand now?
Note was not a typo, and I am saying that direct election marked the beginning of a downhill slide.
Senators are supposed to represent their states, not the people. And we don't live in a democracy, nor would it be desireable.
This moron is not alone in being misinformed about that.
"I would hope that Alan Keyes would trust those voters too."
We have to assume Obama supports Fitzgerald in that case because he trusts the people who elected him.
I think you're correct. It really started to decline in 1861.
The ravings of a liberal. I hope this isn't a prime example of the kinds of people who decide major elections. How about, I want this guy, I'll vote for him, and we will see how it turns out. Not this namby-pamby I wonder if it feeeeeeels right, he has to shooooooow me. Tell you what, go vote libertarian or leave it blank. You'll look and feel real smart, and that's all that matters.
Keys can reply to the thrust of this article by pointing out that Byrd and he agree on the point. It doesn't get the 17th repealed, but it makes mincemeat of the attack on him (Keyes).
Sheeesh...can't a guy make a mistake once in a while...
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.