[weikel]

It should be repealed but do not neglect the role of the 16th amendment( probably not ever ratified either) or the 19th. Plus I don't really like Amendment 24 either only net taxpayers should vote.

[CPT Clay]

Great article. To answer the queation yes it should.

[rdb3]

I agree. The XVII Amendment should be repealed. The "people" have their voice as represented by the House of Representatives. The 2-year term makes it so the representative is accountable to his constituents (in theory, at least).

If these five Justices are deciding cases this way, is that even more reason to ensure that the Senate Judiciary Committee is controled by the GOP as opposed to the Dems?

Think about it.

If you got mo', go with it.

[H.Akston]

"The Cloudy Reasons Behind The Seventeenth Amendment"

There is no agreement on why the system of electing Senators was changed through the enactment of the Seventeenth Amendment. But there is widespread agreement that the change was to the detriment of the states, and that it played a large part in dramatically changing the role of the national government.

I believe the reason The Reason is "cloudy", is because of ignorance about what happened during Reconstruction, and why the 14th Amendment destroyed federalism. It destroyed federalism because it was so vague, that it essentially gave the US Supreme Court and Congress total veto power over anything a State Legislature decided. This essentally relegated the State legislatures to the sidelines before the 17th Amendment was passed.

[x]

There'd be more sentiment in favor of abolishing the 16th (Income Tax) Amendment.

Zywicki is wrong. There was a great deal of corruption in state legislatures in selecting senators, especially in small and marginal states like RI, NV, WV, NJ. Railroads, banks and maufacturers bribed legislatures. Muckrakers like Ida Tarbell, Lincoln Steffens and David Graham Philips picked up on this in scandalous articles.

Populists and progressives adopted the democratic ideology of direct election. Their feeling was that the people wouldn't be bought off by special interests as legislators were. It all seems very naive now, but when you consider that state legislatures were often apportioned by county rather than by one-man-one-vote in those days, you can see why they complained. Some State Representatives or State Senators from small counties might themselves be accountable to virtually no one, and their votes would essentially be for sale in the Senatorial elections.

You could also argue that the 17th Amendment suited the ambitions of the leaders of the progressive movement. The senate was largely a backwater in the 19th century. States governments and governors had greater power then. "Senate" comes from the Latin for elder, and the idea of the senate as a group of elder statesmen persisted.

The 17th Amendment changed the role of the Senate, the type of person who became a Senator, and the public's view of the Senate. Senators became more ambitious, more hustling and more headline grabbing. They couldn't rely on their friends in the legislature but had to aggressively court the public.

Shifting to direct election also meant that every Senator could be a potential President and every Senate election a dry-run to the Presidency. No Senator went directly to the Presidency before Harding. Kennedy was the other, though dozens or scores have tried, especially since the 17th Amendment was passed.

In theory we could go back to the older system, though it won't happen. The idea of direct election has become so powerful and prominent in the public mind. It's become the source of political legitimacy. Officials who don't have that ballot box mandate take a back seat to those who do.

Were Senators once again chosen by state legislatures the Senate would lose much of its power and once again become a backwater. Congressmen would become more prominent and thumb their popular election in the eyes of the indirectly elected Senate. Governors would become more prominent in Presidential elections, though this doesn't mean that states will have any more power.

That's not an argument against change. There is something to be said for a Senate and House chosen in different ways and representing different understandings of the national interest, but it should be noted that voters probably wouldn't allow an indirectly elected Senate the kind of power it has today.

[Twodees]

Deadlocks happened from time to time when, because of party imbalance, a legislature was unable to muster a majority (as necessary under the 1866 law that controlled) in favor any person.

The 1866 law sounds unconstitutional anyway. Where is Congress granted the power to interfere with the workings of state legislatures? During that postwar time period when the radicals held sway, an awful lot of harm was done to the Constitutional form of government designed for the US by the framers of the USConstitution.

Why not repeal the 14th through 17th amendments? All four are antithetical to our originally designed form of government and all four have dubious ratification records as well.

[GotDangGenius]

Repealing the 17th ain't gonna happen. It is far more feasible to amend the 10th to be more specific. In short, arriving at langugage which causes the fed courts to rule that state laws which conflict with the federal law shall be supreme within the boundaries of the state unless there is a "compelling governmental reason" to balance an issue for practicality under the commerce clause.

Point being that there is a role for the federal government to facilitate commerce between the states and foreign nations for the benefit of the people. That is where federal law powers should end. The feds should not legislate murder laws, drunk driving laws, discrimination laws- that should clearly be enuciated to be the realm of each state so long as each state does not enact laws that violate established Constitutional protections.

As well, reform of the 10th should include a provision that no land may be owned by the federal government unless it is for a federal building, highway, post-office, military base, etc. BLM and Forest service lands should be controlled by the states within who's borders the land is located. State law being supreme. A specific limitation on the federal government's ability to condem land- only allowing condemnation or "emminent domain" to be used for highways, and dams, and in some limited cases military bases. If such things are ever eliminated or abandoned- they revert to the property owner they were bought from.
the federal government should be prohibited from purchasing land for any reason other than highways, dams, or military purposes.

As well, all water and resources within a state should be regulated by the state, not the federal government, with one exception- water that flows from one state to another and upon which a state is dependent for agriculture, drinking water and the such- it should be the role of the federal government to facilitate negotiations between those states so that the states can arrive at a rational solution. In other words, establish water rights based on today's use, and stick to it after that.

That'll stop more speical interest crapola than you can imagine, and it is "Progressive" in that government that is closest to the people effected by its decisions is best.

Wanna stop special interest groups even more? Require that only a registered voter who voted in the last federal election may contribute money that may be used in support or opposition to a candidate for federal office. The limitation on the amount can be set by Congress from time to time. As well, require media to provide a reasonable amount of space and time for political party ads for candidates that have something like at least 15% of the vote in the last election.

That'll crush special interest groups and free up federal elected officials to vote for their people and local concerns more than how its going to play with the national media or some liberal whack case group- so what that the Sierra Club opposes Jow Blow on CNN, the people of Idaho feel the guy is their senator, not some arm-chair SUV driving enviro whack from New York who doesn't even know where Idaho is on a map.

[YankeeReb]

Yes... The last NY senate election is proof of that. Lazio won most of upstate and part of LI. Old crusty knew she just needed the NYC socialist vote and maybe Buffalo and she'd be in, so this is where she spent most of her time campaigning pandering. If we'd have had the original system (which was closer to the presidential electoral system), the Hilderbeast still would have won, but it wouldn't have been the huge blowout.

[Melas]

Anyone want to guess how large the democrat majority would be in the senate without the 17th Amendment?

Hint, Democrats control 18 legislatures, and the Republicans 17. However, Democrats control the state senate in 9 of the 14 states where control is split. Oddball Nebraska is anyone's guess how to count.

Now call me silly, but I don't like those odds.

[BikerNYC]

No, it shouldn't be repealed. At least with it in place, 1/3 of the federal government is directly elected by the people. If it were repealed, only 1/6 of the federal government would be directly elected by the people.

[billbears]

Please see above

[Redcloak]

Yes, the 17th should go. It has produced some dreadful Senators. Take California as an example. In 1992, Boxer and Feinstein were elected. (Boxer was in a special election.) There's no way that these two loons would have been sent to Washington had the Legislature and the Governor been tasked with picking Senators. The Governor then was Pete Wilson. Yes, we'd have still gotten a pair of Democrats, but not these monstrosities!

[JoeSixPack1]

Erasing the 16th is step one. After the dust settled the 17th would be do-able.