Posted on 12/13/2014 11:05:04 AM PST by SleeperCatcher
The 17th amendment has created a “winner take all” mentality in the nation’s capital, and the resulting bitterness that grips partisan Washington today is one direct result of its passage. “Interest groups understand that to impose one’s will on 300,000,000 Americans, one must influence one president, the selection of 5 supreme court justices, 51 (or 60) senators, and 218 representatives, a total of 275 individuals who live primarily in physical isolation, far away from those they govern,” says the Campaign to Restore Federalism.
(Excerpt) Read more at absoluterights.com ...
Ping.
yes, yes, and yes
You want a bazooka?
Let the cops have three
More armament is the way to control armament
I don’t think repealing the 17th Amendment would necessarily return to federalism. Two problems jump out: first, corruption of state legislatures could be a huge issue - one of the reasons the 17th amendment passed in the first instance is that there were a number of scandals in which people essentially bought Senate seats by bribing legislators. Second, there is a risk (also present before the 17th amendment passed initially) that state elections would become little more than proxies for the Senate election.
thanks!
no corruption in the current system - nope, not even a smidgen
You don’t have to prove there is. So the sarcasm is completely lost.
One thing that repealing the 17th could do is end the assumption/assertion of Senators being federal employees. (Remember Murtha and how the courts protected him from slander and defamation charges w/ that argument?)
Get rid of the 16th amendment.
Have federal sales tax to pay for defense.
Stop there.
“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.Then once patriots get state lawmakers angry with the crook feds then patriots and state lawmakers need to include the following provisions in the repeal amendment for 17A.
Give states the power to recall members in both Houses of Congress, citizens able to recall representatives and state lawmakers able to recall senators.
Give states the power to fire bad-apple Supreme Court justices on 3/4 (2/3?) majority state vote, same supermajority required to ratify an amendment.
Glenn Beck pointed out that a different corruption, on a larger scale, takes place now - he mentioned Chris Dodd - we rec’d nearly all his re-election money from OUTSIDE of CT - and what he didn’t mention, it came from corrupt crony-capitalist groups like Fannie Mae and US Mortgage Lenders Assoc.
At very least, if Senators are chosen by state legislatures, the average citizen is closer to that representative and has more ability to influence. More local government at least means the ability to understand and influence local government.
Could only be passed by the the convention route. Impossible to imagine a majority, much less 2/3, of the Senate voting themselves out of a job.
That is a fair response. Perhaps a compromise will do it. 1 senator elected by popular vote and 1 senator elected by the legislature. FWIW.
In general I agree with you. I would not want to turn over selection of our Senators to the California Legislature. At least by direct vote we have a slight chance of throwing out the likes of Feinstein and Boxer.
Amen - and if the cops want a howitzer, the People get to have three -- per household...
Not unless national redistricting reform is instituted first. Convoluted districts pervert the electoral process and if the 17th. Amendment were repealed, legislators safe in malapportioned districts would choose Senators without regard for the will of the states’ voters. At the time the amendment was repealed, the state legislatures were cesspools of corruption. Instead of voters choosing their politicians, politicians choose their voters and we can’t let that influence the U.S. Senate. If an end to partisan redistricting in imposed, than repealing the 17th. Amendment can be discussed. Not until then, though.
Fortunately, that's FAR too many people for the Saudis to be able to buy.
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.