Posted on 06/30/2013 6:34:28 AM PDT by Jacquerie
I’ve spent a fair amount of time these past few months researching and noodling the cause and effect of the one hundred year old 17th Amendment. I’m especially excited that Mark Levin’s upcoming book will address, certainly among other topics, the horrible 17th and what to do about it.
Consider the awful lot of today’s typically abused senator. He or she is pulled this way and that by hundreds of interests. Every competing interest has its hands out for tax subsidies, special legislative carve outs, or both. Since constitutionally enumerated powers long ago went the way of the dodo bird, there is no telling what outrageous demands our senators face. His unsaid task of course, is to figure out which interests best promote his reelection. It is not easy. Among these interests is his political party. When a senator and president belong to the same party, rest assured THE first interest a senator attends to, is his president.
As party leader, presidents can encourage or discourage primary challengers, direct their national committee to cut off campaign funds to wayward senators, or open the dollar floodgates to dependable soldiers. Still, retention of their jobs is still job #1, and the careful senator must weigh party loyalty against possible voter outrage around election time. When the outcome of keeping faith with his president predictably jeopardizes reelection, the penitent senator must kiss the ring and ask for an indulgence. Taken together, these constant political calculations require tremendous work and impose enormous stress.
BTW, where in the various machinations among members of the world’s most deliberative body does the welfare of his state and nation come into the picture? Uh . . . .
It occurred to me that if the 17th is repealed, perhaps no job could be easier than that of senator. As opposed to the time of our Framing, senators today could quickly determine the mood and attitude of their bosses in state legislatures. With a few phone calls, emails, texting . . . today’s senator could stay in close touch with constituents. How difficult could it be to stay in near daily contact with a state house speaker, senate majority leader and ranking members? “Good morning Tom. Senator Bedfellow here. Say, President Kenyan is thinking about nominating a weirdo lawyer from Harvard to the supreme court who thinks the Nigerian constitution is just swell. I should oppose, right?” Duh.
Back to seriousness. Repeal the 17th and watch party, presidential and media influence over senators decline. Watch a return to better separation of powers. No longer would senators have to electorally fear criticizing the first black guy in the White House, or upsetting delicate mexican, muzzie or homosexual feelings.
Replacement of hundreds of interests with state legislatures would return the responsibility of our senate back to where it belongs, with the states. Repeal the 17th Amendment.
17th Amendment Ping!
Agreed. While we’re at it, bring home every legislator from that pit, and make them ALL telecommute. We can have all the legislation done via video conference. That way, they’ll be among the constituents they’re supposed to represent. Right, MArco Rubio?
Bookmark.
One of the first pieces of legislation my congressman introduced was to require 21 days per month be spent in their home districts. It was allowed to die the slow death of inaction.
Well done.
While I doubt the power could ever be placed back in the hands of the state legislatures (People will never accept giving up their “rightful vote”) we just might be able to change the way the voting is done. Maybe giving the win to the senate candidate who wins the most districts.
As long as El Presidente and his commissars can make up or do away with laws as they wish, it may not be wise to leave them home alone. I know it is not as if Congress provides much adult supervision, but there is no telling the sort of extra tyranny we could expect if Congress left the rat government to itself three weeks out of four.
Interesting article.
Thanks for the heads up.
Imagine for a moment, if you will,
how the text of a 17th amendment repeal would read...
-
Simply: “The 17th amendment is hereby repealed.”???
Or would/should it contain more?
“The manner and method of selection of the members of the United States Senate shall be determined by each of the several states.”???
and/or
“The term of office for members of the United States Senate shall be 6 years; terms will be staggered with 1/3 being elected every 2 years; but no person shall be chosen for the office of Senate of the United States for more than two terms.”???
and/or
“Each member of the United States Senate must be at least thirty years old, and must be a legal citizen of the United States for at least 12 years, and must be a legal resident of the state from which they are chosen for at least the previous 12 years.”
I think repeal of the 17th can capture conservative minds. Wouldn't it be great to take command of the debate, rather continually respond to rat attacks? It represents a good sense return to the Framer's political science. Over half of the states opposed Obamacare in court, and they watch the national government intrude almost daily on their prerogatives. I suspect there may be more support and less opposition than we imagine.
In 1765, the colonies were ready to pay stamp taxes to the King. That is, until a noob Burgess by the name of Patrick Henry lit the spark of revolution.
The 17th certainly changed the direction of the country. More than half the states have a 3 branch GOP majority yet many of those states like mine still end up with the worst most liberal senators because the largest cities in those states determine them.
IMO, it is of the utmost importance for legislatures to be ultimately responsible for senators.
Two words.
Term Limits.
On the right, those in the Legislative that are against it are primaried out. On the left, those against it we run non stop commercials about their corruption and this is the only way to stop it.
The other thing I would go after is a change to the electoral process. The winner of each “county” gets a point. Most points wins the state. This way if Philly wants to vote at 500% for a candidate, it still only counts as 1 point.
This way there is no disenfranchisement.
This needs to get on the ballot for 2014.
Ahhhh, almost forgot.
If illegals want to flood a state to change the political landscape, this prevents it.
Delegates at the Michigan state GOP convention voted by a wide margin to support a proportional system (by district) of electoral vote distribution in the presidential races.
If we did something like that it won’t matter if vote fraud in Detroit produce a billion votes, they still only get what is allotted to them.
Limit the damned crooks to two five-year terms. Limit the damned crooks in the house to two three year terms. No pensions other than what they choose to pay for, the same Obamacare that the rest of us are forced to tolerate.
Make all political contributions ANONYMOUS, so they can’t sell influence, not knowing who is buying.
Will some cheat? Sure, but it will be harder and make it easier to catch them.
Unfortunately, this would be slapped down as unconstitutional because it would give less than one vote to many through dilution. From a public perception standpoint, it would be spun as the next 3/5ths compromise, particularly given the racial composition of most major cities.
Better to eliminate voter fraud to eliminate the Philly problems. Won't be easy but it is the right thing to do. This includes arresting and prosecuting district justices (small claims court judges) who give court orders to illegals permitting them to vote in elections (like they did in Philly in 2000).
If the repeal of the 17th is too difficult what about allowing state legislatures to recall?
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.