Repeal The 17th Amendment?

By BigGator5 Posted in Comments (17) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

I thought I would switch gears here in this thread. Instead of talking about policies or people, I thought we can talk on something we might all agree on:

Repealing the 17th Amendment

To start out with, I thought we would all like more information about the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

The Seventeenth Amendment of the United States Constitution amends Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution to provide for the direct election of Senators by the people of a state rather than their election or appointment by a state legislature. It states:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

I have always been a big supporter of State powers over Federal powers. I have also said over and over, if there is ever going to be a rebellion against a corrupt Federal Government/President, it will come from the States and not individuals (like the Civil War: even through the States rebelling were wrong, it corrected the injustice of slavery). To this end, I think there is a gross inbalance power between state and federal government. I have name this inbalance The Seventeenth Amendment.

I'm sorry to put this to you people, but we are not a pure democracy or the very least the Framers thought we should be a confederated republic. A shared power between State and Federal government, and if you look closely at the original wording of the Constitution, the only people directly elected to the Federal Government was the House of Representatives. Why was this done? To deny special interests:

"In republican government, the legislative authority, necessarily predominate. The remedy for this inconveniency is, to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them by different modes of election, and different principles of action, as little connected with each other, as the nature of their common functions and their common dependencies on the society, will admit." ~James Madison Federalist No 51

Unsurprisingly, the Revolutionaries were not very impressed with most aspects of the British model of government. They rejected parliamentary government, with its king or queen and three estates of the realm (lords spiritual, lords temporal, and the commons).

But one feature of the British system, the Framers did borrow. That was bicameralism - a word coined by Brit Jeremy Bentham to describe the division of the legislature into two chambers (or, in Latin, camera).

The British Parliament had its House of Lords as the upper chamber and the House of Commons as the lower chamber. Citizens selected members of the House of Commons. The members of the House of Lords, in contrast, were those who had been titled by a king or queen (lords temporal) and the archbishops and bishops of the Church of England (lords spiritual).

Loosely basing our bicameral legislature on this model (minus the lords, both temporal and spiritual), the Framers created the House of Representatives as the lower chamber, whose members would be selected directly by the people. And with almost unanimous agreement, they determined that members of the upper chamber, the Senate, would be selected by not directly, but by the legislatures of the states. Each state would have two Senators, while Representatives would be apportioned based on population.
-
Repeal of the amendment would restore both federalism and bicameralism. It would also have a dramatic and positive effect on campaign spending. Senate races are currently among the most expensive. But if state legislatures were the focus of campaigns, more candidates might get more access with less money - decidedly a good thing.

Returning selection of Senators to state legislatures might be a cause that could attract both modern progressive and conservatives. For conservatives, obviously, it would be a return to the system envisioned by the Framers. For progressives - who now must appreciate that direct elections have only enhanced the ability of special interests to influence the process - returning to the diffusion of power inherent in federalism and bicameralism may seem an attractive alternative, or complement, to campaign finance reform. [1]

It took from 1826 (idea first proposed) until 1913 to pass this bad amendment, it might just take that long to repair the Constitution. Enough from me, do you think we should repeal the 17th Amendment?

Pro - Daffy Idea to Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment
Anti - Failure of the Seventeenth Amendment
Neutral - HonestArgument.com

Join The Revolution!
BigGator5.net
John McCain for 2008!

The 16th and the 17th.

If you want to have a converstation about getting rid of the 23rd, I'd be okay with that.

I'd like the 4th and 5th to be fully re-instated, however.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I prefer voters in DC using the constitutional amendment process a LOT more than making weird deals with Utahans to shortcut the law.


Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan

If you wanna vote, you don't live in the seat of power. You want to lobby? Great. You don't get a vote.

But, of course, you'll just end up with the rich folks living in Virginia (and voting) and the poor folks being taxed but not represented... not even in the electoral college.

But, for the record, that's the conversation I'd be willing to have about it.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire



Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan

My inclination is to say no because I fear that Senate seats would become nothing more than political favors. I could see this change resulting in even more porkbarreling and favors going back and forth for votes in the legislature. I think people like Ted Stevens are more likely to be replaced by voters than legislatures, call it an honor among thieves situation.

Recommended anyway because it's worthy of discussion.

www.republicansenate.org

And that might be what the doctor orders if you're conscerned about creeping Socialism (which I am).

Wasn't the Senate originally supposed to be the states' check on the federal government?

Support libertarian Republicans here and here.
www.rlc.org
www.fairtax.org

it was also intended to be more of an advisory board for the president rather than a full legislative body, if memory serves me right.
----------------------------------------------------
"That's funny, because I can see him eating her liver with some falafel and a nice hot tea." - kyle8

It used to be a lot easier to tar & feather your State Legislature members.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

we can still tar and feather them at the ballot box (metaphorically speaking of course).
----------------------------------------------------
"That's funny, because I can see him eating her liver with some falafel and a nice hot tea." - kyle8

I can't imagine 67 senators voting in favor of their political demise.

Unfortunately, I don't see a snowball's chance of convening a constitutional convention over this issue. Piggyback this with a repeal of the 16th amendment, however, and you might have better chances of the convention route. Still a very long shot as of May 2008

And Rightly So!



Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan

I've done a little bit of research trying to find out:

1) Why was the 17th was ever proposed in the first place?
2) Who were the real drivers that got it pushed through the required States for ratification?
3) Was it indeed properly passed and ratified?

I've been able to find almost nothing on 1 or 2. And the little bit on 3 falls into the "maybe, maybe not" category.

Does anyone here have some info on any of those questions?

I can't speak for #3, but think I can help with the other two.

I believe the switch was made because of pressure from the public and the fact many states had already shifted toward this way of electing Senators.

The reason was because there was a lot of deadlocks and corruption behind it. Some States would get so deadlocked that they didn't have representation for years. There was also a ton of bribery charges and the Senate turned into a cesspool of corruption.

So if you're looking to blame someone for the 17th Amendment, point your finger at the politicians of that era that abused the system. As much as I like the idea on paper, I have a sad feeling it would just be abused again today.

They marched to the 'New Freedom' vision of Woodrow Wilson. This was just a prelude to the 'New Deal' vision of FDR. They also did the 16 & 18th amendments. Unfortunately only the 18th was repealed out of these 3.


Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service