To: o_zarkman44
The point of Antifederalist 39 is that the mode of electing Senators was window dressing from the start. It didn't offer any additional power to the states. It was an administrative duty with no authority to back it up. It was pretend-federalism. A fig leaf meant to cloud the true consolidated nature of the new system.
It's a massive waste of time worrying about the 17th amendment, or for that matter, the 10th.
13 posted on
06/14/2010 4:02:53 PM PDT by
Huck
(Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
To: Huck
Maybe the 10th and 17th aren’t important to you.
Perhaps the entire Constitution is a bother for all left wingers.
How do you know the electing of Senators by their representative state legislature was not empowering to the states? Where is that stated?
I think that Senators are much less likely to represent their state when they have to raise funds from outside special interests to get reelected, than raising favor from their own state of residence.
14 posted on
06/14/2010 4:36:35 PM PDT by
o_zarkman44
(Elect Chuck Purgason US Senate http://purgasonforsenate.com/)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson