Repeal 17th Amendment

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

[Dick Bachert]

SEE THE HIGHLIGHTED -- ALMOST PARANTHETICAL -- BONUS FOR THOSE FAVORING ELIMINATION OF THE INCOME TAX NEAR THE MIDDLE OF DEAN'S PIECE.

[Jaxter]

I saw a bumper sticker that said "When Women Vote, Democrats are Elected". In light of that I like to get rid of the 19th Amendment as well.

[section9]

A well thought out piece, but liberals would not find it in their interest to repeal the Second Amendment, as they believe in concentration of power at the federal level.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[inquest]

Wow, and the car's still in one piece? ;-)

By the way, this column's been posted here, in case you're curious.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Whew! Now I won't have to take the heat for posting that idea!

[fporretto]

Please see also:

Democracy Is Not Freedom

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[Woodworker]

A return to election of senators via state legislatures would have no effect on campaign expeditures. It would up the ante for state legislative races. Corruption and lack-of-transperancy are a problem with state legislatures.

So, repealing the direct election of senators may or may not improve the system. Repealing the right of women to vote? No way. That's a non-starter. Too many conservative women run the local party organizations.

Repealing the income tax is a grand idea. It would help starve the monster.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Though actually one could argue better to keep the 19th amendment, but revert back to the voter definition of colonial times: property owners.

[beaversmom]

"I saw a bumper sticker that said "When Women Vote, Democrats are Elected". In light of that I like to get rid of the 19th Amendment as well."

Ha, Ha. Not by this woman. I'm a conservative woman of the Ann Coulter mindset--gee, if I only had a body like hers.

[Dick Bachert]

Search (with several relevant terms) DID NOT turn it up.

And the highlighting of the INCOME TAX comment (by a WASHINGTON INSIDER) bore emphasis.

[BikerNYC]

If you're going to restrict voting to property owners, then no taxes of any kind can be levied on non-property owners. Property owners would have to pick up sales taxes and the like (if there are any).

[FreedomPoster]

That's always an interesting discussion topic to bring up at parties, if the talk has already turned political.

I'll all for killing the 17th Amendment, too.

[FreedomPoster]

Statistically, you are an anomoly (as is my wife).

[inquest]

That's cool, it wasn't a criticism. That's why I said "in case you're curious".

[GraniteStateConservative]

if I only had a body like hers.

Stop eating altogether. That's what she does.

[Dick Bachert]

Do wish Dean had mentioned ROGER SHERMAN'S ardent support for senate election by state legislatures, not to mention his "Connecticut Compromise" in the establishment of a bicameral system here.

For those to whom Roger Sherman is unknown, he is the ONLY man to sign ALL FOUR documents surrounding the formation of the United States.

He was also a fervent OPPONENT of PAPER MONEY (author of gold and silver tender portion of Art.1, Sect. 10).

This almost certainly explains WHY he has been chucked down the old memory hole by the ever-vigilant history revisionists.

[inquest]

Personally, I'm kind of partial to the poll-tax idea, myself. People tend to treat with greater respect, that which they're obliged to pay for.

[BfloGuy]

Thanks for the post.

It's too bad that the rampant populism we have in this country would doom any such attempt -- I'd love to see it, though. It's fascinating to try and imagine the complexion of a Senate chosen by the State Legislatures.

Let's take it one more step and have the New York State Senate chosen by the County Legislatures.

But, back to populism -- I still get into arguments with people who think everyone should vote on everything (via the Internet, of course): true democracy. Wow, can you imagine the budget, then?

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

If you're going to restrict voting to property owners, then no taxes of any kind can be levied on non-property owners. Property owners would have to pick up sales taxes and the like (if there are any).

A fair amount of these taxes would then be passed along to those who rent from said property owners.

[fporretto]

I like that idea myself. Unfortunately, the states preceded the counties historically and are subservient to them politically by charter. (County charters must be approved by the state legislature.)

Really thoroughgoing federalism would isolate the individual from the predations of all but the political unit closest to him: the town. Towns would be answerable to counties, counties to states, and states to the federal government. No government could levy a tax or impose a law on any but the level immediately below it. Poof! No more income tax. You'd see "revenue sharing" and similar inanities disappear like mist at sunrise. And political competition among districts would allow us to determine what laws we really needed for the common defense and general welfare.

I know it'll never happen. I can dream, though.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com