The Seventeenth Amendment: Should It Be Repealed?

FindLaw ^ | Friday, September 13, 2002 | By JOHN W. DEAN

[OXENinFLA]

YES it should! Because of it Senators and Repersentives are the same, Voted on by the people. That is not the way it is supposed to be. Here is a good link from EtherZone.

http://www.etherzone.com/2002/moor061402.shtml

[Mark Felton]

absolutely. The idea that massively ignorant citizens should have 100% control over the selection of all Congressman is an experiment that has proven disastrous.

There is a very good reason why those voters now have the power to vote themselves money and services paid for by the minority who pay the majority of taxes.

[Virginia-American]

I totally agree. See Bastiat's "Trial by Jury". JR, isn't this one of your pet issues?

[omega4412]

You mean have senators chosen by the California legislature??? Most effective way I can think of to get senators even worse than DiFi and Boxer.

[Hanging Chad]

Should it be repealed? - Absolutely.
Will it be? - Never
There's too many folks on the gravy train now.

[newgeezer]

Every Amendment from 16 onward should be repealed.

With the first 15, the Constitution was purt' near perfect.

[TwoBear]

Great Read. Thanks.

[KC Burke]

good post and good issue...

A link to Seventeenth Amendment -- Structural Error is in order. Please note that the thread linked is the second in a series and more good stuff is found if you follow a link in that thread to the first one.

[zx2dragon]

Welcome.

Believe it or not, I accidently ran across this after mistyping a weblink.

Follow the link, there are some links that are embedded in the original article that I did not duplicate here.

[nicollo]

*bump* for later harangue.

First, a couple quickies:

1)By the time of its adoption, most States already had it;
2)Like most of the era's progressive & populist "reforms" to bring about "direct democracy," it backfired;
3)Repeal of the 17th would reinvigorate local politics.

[Bigun]

Should It Be Repealed?

ABSO FRIGGIN LOUTLEY!!!

The HOUSE is where the represenatives of the people reside and the senate is where the represenatives of the STATES reside!

Or, at least, that's the way it was SUPPOSED to be!

[KC Burke]

The article says:
What about the "corruption and deadlock" explanation? Zywicki's analysis shows that, in fact, the corruption was nominal, and infrequent. In addition, he points out that the deadlock problem could have been easily solved by legislation that would have required only a plurality to elect a Senator - a far easier remedy than the burdensome process of amending the Constitution that led to the Seventeenth Amendment.

This I don't agree with. The Railroad interests corrupted State Legislatures leading to a corruption of the Senate to a fairly large extent. Monied interests over-played their hand and got Popularism as revenge. If you start swinging the penduleum, you have to face the motion you start.

The history of the opening of the west must be examined to determine how the economic and politcal forced interacted.

[TC Rider]

Any idea how the Senate would bread down today if based on the parties in control of State legislatures?

[Looking for Diogenes]

An interesting column about the 17th Amendment. Thanks for posting it.

But I don't agree with Prof. Zywicki. At least some state legislatures were very corrupted at the end of the 19th Century, which had a direct affect on the election of US Senators. The Progressive movement may not have passed its entire agenda, but many states did get recall and initiative laws passed at that time.

As for the growth of the federal government, I think WWI and the income tax were more responsible than the Seventeenth Amendment.

[Grit]

bump

[KC Burke]

fyi

[KC Burke]

fyi

[KC Burke]

fyi

[Free the USA]

fyi