Skip to comments.Why the 17th Amendment was a bad idea
Posted on 06/14/2010 5:11:50 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Why the 17th Amendment was a bad idea
The 17th Amendment to the US Constitution allowed for direct election by the voters of their senators. Never mind that the Founding Fathers foresaw that was a bad idea - onward in our rush toward democracy! (something else the Founders knew to be a mistake)
Not only does direct election of senators lead those senators to compete in confiscating and redistributing wealth in order to buy votes, but there's also the distinct possibility that, (Hm, how can I put this delicately?) if a significant portion of the electorate in your state is lazy, ignorant, or mentally deficient (or all the above) they might actually vote for someone like Alvin Greene, the Democrat candidate for the South Carolina senate seat who just won his primary despite not bothering to campaign for it. He spent no money, aside from the $10,000 filing fee, and how he came up with that is a mystery, since he's unemployed. He rang no doorbells, spoke at no rallies, and gave no interviews, but he won 60% of the vote. He is inarticulate. He can express no plan beyond "Jobs, Education, and Justice," and he is being charged with having shown obscene material to a minor. His responses to questions are so lame, so monosyllabic, that in this interview (Click on the title to this post.) his interviewer asks him if he is impaired. Really. Most candidates realize you have to survive your general election, not just the primary before you start acting like an idiot. At least we can credit Mr. Greene with being transparent.
Except aside from clearly demonstrating his sub-par intelligence, he's not transparent at all. "My lawyer's handling that," is how he answers most of the questions in this interview.
So how does an unemployed, inarticulate, potential criminal who ran no campaign, displays no mental acuity, and must periocially be poked with a stick in order to ensure he's still alive win a primary election? When the mob votes, you get candidates that are just like them. South Carolina - you have serious issues.
When you elected James Clyburn back in the early '90s and, in his first letter to his constituents he used words like "spanse" (as in "the broad spanse and diversity of our state") and "syncretize" (as in "we must syncretize the needs of different people") I thought you'd been shamed enough, and might exercise a little more discernment in your representatives. You keep on reelecting that clown though, so I guess Alvin Greene should come as no surprise to anyone.
If you, like many of my friends, live in South Carolina, I hope you homeschool your kids. It's clear that the state is doing a lousy job of turning out responsible citizens.
It was an especially bad idea since it(17th) never passed. The Constitution made any change in the Senate a unanimous requirement. It is too bad the SC never references anything but the interstate commerce clause.
I have mixed thoughts. I see what the founders thought was the best idea but if we fast forward, the Kennedy political machine would have a new senator in Teddy’s seat.
If we rewind far enough, JFK never would have made it into the senate in the first place.
He was difficult to distinguish from most of the rest of the Leftist mob in Washington DC.
Well, then, he is the perfect Democrat!
It’s complicated. I agree with the founders’ premise but quickly removing a corrupt machine is satisfying. At the same time, Sen. Byrd and the the Dodd family remain firmly entrenched despite popular voting laws through the 17th Amendment.
I completely reject the author’s notion that South Carolina has serious problems. SOUTH CAROLINA will elect Jim Demint. Senator Demint was never in any danger of losing this election.
South Carolina DEMOCRATS are the ones with serious problems. Only declared democrats votes for this idiot. Idiots voting for idiots. Makes perfect sense to me.
Kind of like how Obama got elected.
I’d rather do term limits and then revisit the 17th amendment and see if it would still serve a purpose.
The founding fathers also "foresaw" that the direct election of the Vice President on the ticket was a "mistake", so they established in the "original constitution" of 1789 that the runner up in the presidential election would become veep. That would have made John McCain our current Vice President, Al Gore as Bush's veep, and so on. The 11th amendment then changed this and went against the wishes of "The founders" who envisioned the veep role as a president-in-training who had already run for the job and gotten the second highest number of votes. Why isn't the "abolish the 17th amendment" crowd also DEMANDING the abolition of the 11th amendment if they're soooo concerned about what "the founders" wrote down in 1789? Could it be that they, too, pick and choose which parts of "the founders" Constitution want to keep intact?
>> - onward in our rush toward democracy! (something else the Founders knew to be a mistake) <<
The founders of what nation? Fidel Castro's Cuba, perhaps. They certainly don't have democratic elections there since "the founders" took over in 1959 revolution. Power doesn't derive from the just consent of the governed, it derives from Fidel Castro and the Communist Party. Fidel doesn't allow democracy, so the people of Cuba have no say in who represents them in government. All members of the Cuban Parliament are selected for the job by the Communist Party, and run unopposed. So if the idea of being able to choose your own representation in government offends you, Fidel's island paradise is your kinda nation... a Republic without any form of democracy. Here in the United States we have a democratic representative Republic where the ultimate authority is we the PEOPLE, whether direct or indirect.
>> Not only does direct election of senators lead those senators to compete in confiscating and redistributing wealth in order to buy votes <<
... but it pales in comparison to the state legislature appointment of Senators leading those senators to to compete in confiscating and redistributing wealth in order to buy votes.
>> but there's also the distinct possibility that, (Hm, how can I put this delicately?) if a significant portion of the electorate in your state is lazy, ignorant, or mentally deficient (or all the above) they might actually vote for someone like Alvin Greene. When the mob votes, you get candidates that are just like them. South Carolina - you have serious issues. If you, like many of my friends, live in South Carolina, I hope you homeschool your kids. It's clear that the state is doing a lousy job of turning out responsible citizens. <<
The author of this piece seems to have confused the primary election with the general. The voters of "South Carolina" didn't do a "lousy job" and elect Alvin Greene as their Senator, the DEMOCRAT primary voters of the criminal party of treason NOMINATED him as THEIR candidate. He is overwhemingly expected to LOSE the general election and NOT become a Senator when ALL the people of South Carolina get to have their say. And remind me again why the author has a problem with that? If he's offended that the socialist RAT runs criminals, then his beef is with the socialist RAT party voters and their nomination process, not the 17th amendment. No wonder this guy wants to abolish it when he flunked How Elections Work 101.
The 17th amendment actually ensures guys like Alvin Greene will NOT become Senators, whereas abolishing the 17th amendment ensures people like Martha Coakley WOULD become Senators instead of decent people like Scott Brown.
>> So how does an unemployed, inarticulate, potential criminal who ran no campaign, displays no mental acuity, and must periocially be poked with a stick in order to ensure he's still alive win a primary election? <<
The same way an an unemployed, inarticulate, potential criminal who ran no campaign, displays no mental acuity, and must periocially be poked with a stick in order to ensure he's still alive Roland Burris got to become Senator when we left it up to crooked state officials instead of the voters to pick Illinois' current U.S. Senator. The RAT party loves sending scumbags to the Senate. If you abolish the 17th amendment, they can increase their number of Senators tenfold. Perhaps you might to rethink the prospect of giving them any more power. <<>
The 17th caused Senators to be more beholden to D.C. and less responsive to the individual states. It also ushered in a SCOTUS less inclined to consider States Rights because they are now confirmed by a more “federal” Senate. On the flip side there was so much corruption in State Legislator’s that the the integrity of the Senate was compromised. See Illinois 2008.
It was a 3 legged stool POTUS, States, People. The 17th kicked one leg out. States and People were supposed to make up the Congress. States = Senate People = House electoral college =POTUS. The formula which retained the Republic is on the cutting floor leaving the Feds to amass unlimited power.
Yeah! What BillBoy said!
it is a bad idea,but is going to be harder than getting Hillary Clinton inside Republican headquarters to change back.
Your reading my thoughts on the matter. Thank you. Well done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.