Since the 17th never passed, all we need is the SC to declare it void. Madison, in his wisdom, said the following “no state, without its consent, can be deprived of its sufferage in the Senate” since several states did not consent to the 17th they were deprived of their sufferage in the Senate. The fraudulent passage of the 17th destroyed the republic. You have to remember the “state” referred to is a real entity not the “mob” of the state. We currently elect Senators and Reps by mob vote.
What you talkin’ ‘bout Willis?
The 17th passed.
I’m against the 17th, but I’m not in with a bunch of fools.
Frankly, if the War of Aggression didn’t, then the 17th ammedment did.
How can onw defend what the “South” was fighting for?
How is it any different today?
This is good stuff. May we borrow some of your phrasing?
Yes. It took me quite a few converstations to understand the benefit of the States appointing their own Congressional Senators versus "mob" electing said Senators. It's a complex problem for Joe-Six-Pack, but an issue that has been long ignored.
Seems if a Congressional Convention convenes and proclaims a new law of the land, it should be written in stone. As we know, the 18th Amendment (alcohol prohibition) was repealed by the 21st Amendment. So stone is not as "diamond" hard as some think.
However, I have much concern if the US held a Constitutional Convention in this day. I imagine the liberal worst resulting from it. There is another path to change such statuates.
BTW, the entire purpose of the House of Representives was to be voted by the "mob", so as to counter the Senate as witnessed by Grecian/Roman democracies.
So, I have no problem with the House. It's the Senate I believe has been usurped by Amendment.
I now understand that having a elected state Senate Congressional rep is one more political corrupt avenue for lobbyists.
However, what say you about the problem of each State with liberal majorities having the authority to appoint their Senators? Conundrum?