Skip to comments.BLANKLEY: To re-empower our states (repeal the 17th Amendment)
Posted on 01/26/2010 4:11:17 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
As I was preparing to write a column on the ludi -crous maligning of the Tea Party movement by liberals, Democrats and the mainstream media (which I hope to write next week instead) I started thinking about one of the key objectives of the Tea Party people - the strict enforcement of the 10th Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.").
As an early-1960s-vintage member of the then-new conservative movement, I remember us focusing on the 10th Amendment during the 1964 Goldwater campaign. It has been a staple of conservative thought, and the continued dormancy of 10th Amendment enforcement has been one of the failures of our now half-century-old movement.
But just as the Tea Party movement seems in so many ways to represent the 2.0 version of our movement, so I again thought about the 10th Amendment anew. After about 10 seconds' thought, it struck me that the best way to revive the 10th Amendment is to repeal the 17th Amendment - which changes the first paragraph of Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution to provide that each state's senators are to be "elected by the people thereof" rather than being "chosen by the Legislature thereof."(As I Googled the topic, I found out that Ron Paul and others have been talking about this for years. It may be the only subject that could be proposed and ratified at a constitutional convention with three-fourths of the state legislatures.)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I can’t even begin to conceive of the howls of outrage if this were to be seriously proposed. At a time when the Electoral College is under attack for not being “democratic” I don’t see how this could get any traction. Anywhere.
Sad but true. We’re fortunate to still have the electoral college. I shudder to think what this country would be like without it.
I’ve been saying similar things to what Tony Blankley said in this article for years. The 16th and 17th amendment are two of the most egregious amendments there are. They both need to be repealed. He rightly points out that this erosion started in the Civil War.
Where I disagree with him is when he contends that the federal government does not have the duty to protect our civil or natural rights. These rights come from our creator and the federal government has two duties in regards to it. One is to enumerate them so that everyone knows their natural rights, hence the BOR. The other is to protect it’s citizens against the abuse of our natural rights. If the state will not do that (as in the case of the Southern States during reconstruction), then I believe it is the duty of the Federal government to step in and protect our natural rights. Some of the first gun control laws were those enacted as part of the “Black Codes” after the Civil war designed to keep blacks as quasi slaves.
The problem is that the true genius of our system of government, the checks and balances everywhere is not properly taught in our schools or properly understood by our citizenry. I think Ben Franklin said it best in regards to this subject. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding whats for dinner. Republicanism is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.
You might be surprised. I don’t know anyone who does not support this idea, although I confess that there a lot of people I don’t know.
Still, there is - to my knowledge - a solid constituency to push this along.
Anything that will give politicians more power, in this case state legislators, will be pursued, cheered and embraced. This would be good for our individual liberties. Traction? Hell, the state legislatures will grease the skids.
And your inference that the statists will howl and gnash their teeth is correct. They represent 20% or less of the population. So, yeh, it would take much work and we’d need to fight their over-sized megaphone represented by the propaganda press. But overall, I believe it’s a winner and a fait accompli once the general population is properly educated.
The 10th amendment movement is picking up steam in state legislatures all across the country. Now is the time to start pursuing this.
I’m all for it. The Tea Parties in VA are solidly behind the 10th Amendment initiative, which I believe just made it out of committee in our State Senate. Repeal of the 17th Amendment is another worthy target.
Is Tony aware that if the 17th were repealed, you’d have nearly half the states (or more) in the country that would never elect a Republican Senator again because of permanent and obscenely Democrat majorities ? If the profoundly corrupt MA legislature elected Senators, Marcia (sic) Coakley would’ve beaten Scott Brown by a 90%-10% margin. Even in my state of TN, no Republican would’ve been elected to the Senate until this past year (since Reconstruction, 140 years).
Ever seen the movie Idiocracy?
Post #15. The legislatures would be electing them, an incredibly horrible idea.
It took decades to repeal prohibition - not surprising given that the Founders deliberately instituted mechanisms that were slow and cumbersome.
I think it’s a great idea, and have from the time I first found out the original design the Constitution laid out for membership in the Senate. And if others think it would help at least in some degree to return the balance of power between the individual states and the feds, they should start laying the groundwork for a repeal movement now (primarily education at this point), because it will be a long march.
Seems like a terrible idea....democrats control 27 state legislatures currently to 14 for Repubs. Eight are split.
It would give Dems permanent control of the Senate, and Scott Brown could never have happened.
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.