Repeal 17th Amendment

Findlaw.com ^ | Friday, Sep. 13, 2002 | John Dean

[BikerNYC]

No taxation without representation.

[BikerNYC]

Agreed!

[July 4th]

Nice piece. I wrote a law school research paper on this subject last year, and quoted a lot of Zywicki's work. With the 17th Amendment, the states no longer have a representative in the federal government - thus no one to look out for their interests. It's really just that simple...

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

No taxation without representation.

You do know that landlords routinely pass along the costs of property taxes to their tenants, don't you? And that businesses price their goods to cover their taxes?

I'm not really sure of the point of your slogan. If you are using it as an argument against disenfranchising non-property-owners, well and good. If, on the other hand, you are using it as an argument against business/property owners passing along their costs to their customers, that dog won't hunt.

[BikerNYC]

I know they pass it along to me, but I can vote now.

I don't think you should take the vote of renters away just because they are in very good jobs that don't pay enough to afford buying an apartment in NYC. To some, there are more important things in life than owning property, and that, by itself, should not disenfranchise people.

[weikel]

16th 17th and yes the 19th all need to be axed.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

I don't think you should take the vote of renters away just because they are in very good jobs that don't pay enough to afford buying an apartment in NYC. To some, there are more important things in life than owning property, and that, by itself, should not disenfranchise people.

Excellent point. A better dividing line would be between the net producers v. the net consumers of tax $$. That might be a bit hard to calculate, though, and would result in another bureaucracy that would rival the IRS. :-(

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

16th 17th and yes the 19th all need to be axed.

Don't forget the 14th, Section 1, final sentence: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

As I understand it, this section has been judicially interpreted to transform the Constitution from a document carefully defining the boundaries of the fedgov into a behemoth whose tentacles reach into every nook and cranny of state and local government. It's where the fedgov changed from servant of the States into their master.

[HamiltonJay]

WOW!! Someone else actually arguing something I have been saying for years!! The direct election of Senators removes completely the State's representation in the federal government and has undermined this nation is so many ways its unfathomable.

The House represents the people, the Senate was meant to represent the states, and the Executive branch represented the federal government, and the Supreme Court played referee... now since this ammenment there is no state representation in the federal government!! It is tragic.

[Jim Robinson]

Great article! Have never seen it stated more clearly. The 17th (and 16th) must go if we are ever to restore our constitutional republic.

And the RATs must be voted out. If we want to contine the Rehnquist Court's work of cutting back federal powers, and protecting state's rights, we need a Republican majority to ensure that the retiring Supreme Court Justices are not replaced by liberals.

BIG BUMP!

[Jim Robinson]

Now more than ever, the RATS must be voted OUT!

[Mad Dawgg]

"So, repealing the direct election of senators may or may not improve the system."

Exactly but, instituting TERM limits for all Congress critters would go a long way in stopping foolishness like Senator "Pork-Barrel" Byrd!

[BikerNYC]

Why do you think the States' interestes would differ from the interests of the People?

[marron]

While we are talking about getting back to the fundamentals, I want to suggest that an important reform will be the return of federal land to the states, along with the agencies that administer the land.

BLM, Forestry, Wildlife, and others should become state agencies, so that their employees answer to the people directly affected by their policies.

Every federal agency should have to underego examination to determine why it should remain federal, rather than be divided into 50 separate state agencies. Some should obviously be eliminated altogether, and some should legitimatedly remain federal.

But the constitution provides that the "default" is state control. Time to get back to that. I realize that if we don't have the muscle to shut down the National Endowment for the Arts, or the National Education Association, breaking up the Forestry Service is going to be tough.

[Jim Robinson]

Every federal agency should have to underego examination to determine if they are authorized by the Constitution. If not, they should be disbanded and any assets sold off and the proceeds returned to the treasury. If the individual states wish to continue the function, and the state constitutions allow it, and the state legislatures vote it in, so be it.

[weikel]

It has but that intrepratation is wrong the correct intrepretation of the 14th should be " The States are to be bound to the bill of rights".

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

Why do you think the States' interestes would differ from the interests of the People?

I think the States would be most interested in keeping the fedgov subservient to the States, rather than vice versa. A State-elected Senate would be the first to holler if legislation came up that usurped matters that are the proper prerogative of the State and local governments.

Most individual folks are not interested in such abstract concepts as dual sovereignty and subsidiarity, but State governments certainly are.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Bookmarked for later reading. Thanks!

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

Every federal agency should have to underego examination to determine if they are authorized by the Constitution. If not, they should be disbanded and any assets sold off and the proceeds returned to the treasury. If the individual states wish to continue the function, and the state constitutions allow it, and the state legislatures vote it in, so be it.

Yeah. What Jim said!

:-)