Repeal Seventeenth Amendment

State's Liberty Party ^ | John MacMullin

[stainlessbanner]

Bump for States Rights

[Non-Sequitur]

Or the current Supreme Court?

[4CJ]

The problem with the election of senators by representatives was two parts - bribery, and the fact that a senator could be elected years before service. The next state legislature might attempt to elect it's own senator causing confusion over the legitimacy of the elections. The Confederate Constitution solved the problem by requiring that the senator be elected immediately prior to service, not years in advance.

Bump for Southern genius that preserved states rights, and the federal representation of the states interests.

[Morgan's Raider]

Be careful what you wish for -- the state legislatures in many states with one or two Republican senators (like Tennessee, Alabama, and most other states of the old Confederacy) are controlled by democraps.

[inquest]

You're still avoiding my question. Yeah, I know the court said that states could secede with the consent of the other states (what orifice they pulled that one out of, I don't know, but it sure sounds to me like they're acknowledging that states have a certain sovereign character after all. Hmm...). My question remains, what if there had been support for the legality of unilateral secession? Could you picture the courts acknowledging that in the political climate of 1869?

[inquest]

vvd: One can be assured that the US Supreme Court in 1869 was as unbiased and honest as the current Florida and New Jersy State Supreme Courts.

N-S: Or the current Supreme Court?

I'm not sure what the point of that second comment was. It sounds like you're acknowledging that court rulings don't "settle" anything. Indeed they don't. They only have a practical effect (at best).

[Non-Sequitur]

I'm not avoiding anything. I cannot imagine the court comming to that conclusion in 1869 because I cannot imagine how they find such a right to unilateral secession in the Constitution. If such a right did exist then the whole war would have been avoided. Using your analogy then you might as well say that the court could never and would never overturn the right to an abortion for all the turmoil it would cause.

[inquest]

bribery...

Present-day senators engage in a much more dangerous bribery of their electors.

...and the fact that a senator could be elected years before service.

Congress has always had the power to revise or impose the time and manner in which its members are chosen. If they wanted to prohibit members from being chosen years before, they could have easily done that without going through the trouble of passing an amendment. And in fact, the 17th amendment didn't even prohibit that from happening. The states could still determine the times of election anyway, until Congress intervened, as before.

[Non-Sequitur]

They don't "settle" anything because there are people who immediately assume that every decision rendered by the court that they don't agree with must be due to bias or corruption or whatever. They don't admit to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, they're wrong. So is the case with millions of Democrats with Bush v. Gore in 2000. So is the case with you and Texas v. White. A case is not invalid because your or I disagrees with it.

[inquest]

I cannot imagine the court comming to that conclusion in 1869 because I cannot imagine how they find such a right to unilateral secession in the Constitution.

I might just as easily say that I can't imagine how they found such a prohibition of unilateral secession in that document. But what I'm asking of you is to assume to begin with that there is a plausible construction of the Constitution that could support unilateral secession, and then ask yourself if the court could realistically be expected to apply that construction at that particular point in our history. If you can't, then it makes no sense for you to say that Texas vs. White settled anything, because the court had to rule the way it did. They knew what the conclusion had to be from the beginning of the case, and then set themselves upon the task of validating it however they could. But the only way a ruling on anything can be convincing is if it's uncoerced.

And the abortion controversy doesn't even begin to compare whith what the Chase court was facing.

[inquest]

They don't "settle" anything because there are people who immediately assume that every decision rendered by the court that they don't agree with must be due to bias or corruption or whatever.

That's why I'm giving you the opportunity to indicate whether that was the case with Texas vs. White. What is your appraisal of the effect of the political climate upon their decision?

[Non-Sequitur]

I don't think that the political climate played any part in the majority decision. In the minority decision, perhaps.

[inquest]

Well, then all I can say to that is I think the majority of historians, on either side of the M-D line, would disagree with you.

For my part, I have to regard as suspect any decision that refers only to the Constitution's preamble as justification for its validity.

[Non-Sequitur]

Why should the Preamble count for less than the rest of the Constitution?

[antidisestablishment]

For years, I have believed that the passing of the Seventeenth Amendment signaled the end of our "experiment." Repeal would be wonderful, but nigh impossible due to the gross ignorance of our populace. People don't understand federalism at all.

Just look at the 2000 election. Even my mom was talking about the popular vote (until I explained to her how direct democracy would have eliminated her state [NV] from presidential elections). Americans have sold their birthright for lies.

[inquest]

The Preamble contains no commands of any kind. It requires nothing, it prohibits nothing. It's only an explanation of why the Constitution is being adopted. Further, it speaks only in the vaguest, most subjective terms, such that it essentially says nothing of legal significance. One should therefore be wary of using it even as an aid in construction of the Constitution's enumerated powers. But to cite it and it alone as a basis for a particular ruling, suggests either gross judicial incompetence, or a desperate attempt to find any excuse whatever for a preconceived ruling. The Chase court didn't appear to me to be incompetent, so I guess that narrows it down some.

[Non-Sequitur]

But to cite it and it alone as a basis for a particular ruling, suggests either gross judicial incompetence, or a desperate attempt to find any excuse whatever for a preconceived ruling.

Again, your opinion. There is nothing that indicates that the Preamble should be discarded in favor of the rest of the Constitution. Look at another example. Take away the Preamble and show me where the Constitution allows for an Air Force, Marine Corps, and a Coast Guard? It allows for support for an Army and a Navy and that's it. But due to the Preamble's requirement that we 'provide for the common defense' and suddenly the authority to maintain any kind of military branch is allowed.

[WhiteGuy]

Great article Boonie!

The problem is neither part in congress has the courage or the inclination to propose such a thing.

Pathetic

[inquest]

Take away the Preamble and show me where the Constitution allows for an Air Force, Marine Corps, and a Coast Guard?

Article IV, Section 4.

[Non-Sequitur]

Maybe.