Skip to comments.'Nova Prof Tells Beck 17th Amend End Would Check Feds
Posted on 06/15/2010 11:30:28 AM PDT by Tribune7
Villanova University poli sci professor Colleen Sheehan told Glenn Beck on his last Founders Friday that repealing the 17th Amendment would put a useful check on Washington. For recent graduates of public schools and those who still get their news from the dinosaurs, the 17th Amendment adopted in 1913 established the direct election of U.S. senators. Before that they had been picked by state legislatures.
(Excerpt) Read more at billlawrenceonline.com ...
I tend to agree. The 17th amendment was a serious mistake, as was the 16th.
I have said this all along. Teddy created a monster by allowing Senators to represent themselves instead of their State. With the 17th amendment, state rights took it in the shorts. Senators used to be elected by their respective state legislature, not trade unions and special interest buy offs. Repeal it. There is no way in hell that either RFK or Hillary Clinton could have served in the Senate from the state of NY if the 17th amendment was not passed.
Time for a Constitutional Convention....................
I agree with Beck, the 17th amnendment is key.
Pretty much everything after The BOR was a mistake.
I’ve thought this for years.
We sould solve a lot of problems with a sngle swipe if we just tepealed the 17th amendment.
Agree completely. Of course the 16th has it own problem in that it was never ratified by 3 quarters of the states. Congress just did what they wanted to do. We really need an amendment to spell out penalties and even jail sentences for any congress members that bend/break the rules.
Or better yet a free press that would be willing to castigate any/all politicians who break from estrablished protocols.
no sh!t, sherlock—hey! maybe that’s why it was “changed” to begin with....
No way, you have any proof of that?
Senatorial terms need to be 3 years, with 1/3 up for re-election every year.
By ratifying the 17th amendment, states made themselves that much more irrelevant.
Do you mean TEApealed?
Absolutely agree. Repeal the 17th. In addition, we need to implement recall of SCOTUS Justices by the States (possibly requiring a super-majority). The SCOTUS very seldom upholds 10th amendment arguments, only a handful since WWII. There should be a check-and-balance to the States to provide recourse for unbalanced rulings.
FReepers have called for repeal of the 17th as long as I can remember. Jim Rob is masterful on the subject.
I always tended to agree until I studied some actual history. The method was changed mainly because the prior method had become such a disaster. Fighting and disention within the states was preventing Senators from actually getting appointed and states were often left with less than their allotted two senators representing them and it promoted corruption within the state houses.
Regardless of why it was done, the effect has been to neuter the several states. The cure in this case was worse than the disease.
People wanted direct election of senators in the hopes that it would make the Senate more responsible and less corrupt. Also, when you think about it, in some states, you would never have a chance of a Republican senator. For example, here in NC our state legislature has almost continuously been Democrat since 1868. Under the prior rules, those of us that vote for Repubs would pretty much be SOL.
A better amendment might be to require the states to decide the salary of their own Congressional delegation. That way they don’t get to vote on their own salary or benefits....
But that was how the system was designed. When an individual state implodes it won't spread to the federal government and effect the other states. Or, if Rhode Island and Massachusetts are being controlled by the mob and the unions then Texas won't have to pay for union projects like the Rt 93 tunnel of terror
Not in this environment of vipers, communists and criminals. They would like nothing more than a shot at total destruction of the Constitution. It needs to be done surgically with a vote of the House, Senate and ratification by the States.
Someone stumbles into the truth. Prior to the 17th Amendment there was no utopia in the Senate. Senators were usually either machine party hacks or subsidaries of big business.
Teddy the Progressive was bad for America. The 16th and 17th amendments are two of the biggest constitutional mistakes to have been implemented. Both need to go. Term limits and length of term for Senators becomes moot when the 17th goes away.
That would sure as hell slow 'em down.
Of interest to you, perhaps.
John Perry Barlow: Internet has broken political system
“Time for a Constitutional Convention....................”
No way in hell. Between the left and the right the country would be committing suicide.
That's not going to end well either.....
How could I have guessed oh venerable Freeper :-)
Ole Teddy the Progressive created many monsters of the central government interventionist kind.
Thank you, too!
I agree, but I worry that state legislatures are probably more incompetent and corrupt than Congress.
State Legislatures are much closer to the electorate and thereby more easily dealt with when they go awry.
Welcome and bump
I’d like to see the Senators appointed by the state legislatures. Even then I would one more thing. Term State-wide retention elections for Senators every 6 years, if a previously appointed Senator is reappointed.
That means that House elections are now like electing the major of a city of 650,000 people rather than electing the mayor of a town of 30,000. As a result, each representative is now far less answerable to their constituents and House elections are difficult to run without money. A district of 30,000 would also be far more likely to be represented by a third party candidate.
Shifting the House back to 1 representative for every 30,000 people would mean roughly 10,000 representatives, but more modest proposals would simply increase them to 1,000. There is an article by Jonah Goldberg on the subject here (that also links to a George Will column on the subject). I think there is no technical reason why a 10,000 member House couldn't work, though I have some concerns about how much money 10,000 representatives my consume, though none should need staffs as large as what they need now.
As an added bonus that might make it more palatable to the left, more representatives would dilute the role of the Senate in the Electoral College, but as a bonus to conservatives, it would also dilute Washington, DC's 3 Electoral votes.
The best part is that unlike repealing the 17th Amendment, which would require a Constitutional amendment, increasing the size of the House could be done with legislation so long as the districts aren't smaller than 30,000, the minimum set by the Constitution.
if you read a little history, you will know that one of the main reasons for the 17th Amendment was that "special interests" (chiefly railroads) routinely bribed state legislators to get their hand-picked choices elected to the Senate.
The problems filling the Senate prior to the 17th Amendment could have been solved without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Fix 1: Make governors the deciding vote if the legislatures split on who to sent to DC. Fix 2: Prohibit state legislatures from recalling Senators, perhaps allowing some sort of impeachment exception for criminal malfeasance requiring action by the rest of the Senate, too.
95 percent of todays Federal laws and regulations would not exist because the Senate would have never voted for them. Fed laws trump State laws, and the Senators would hesitate to pass laws that would take power away from the State politicians. The system understood greed, assumed that the State legislatures would be greedy, and used that to offset Federal growth.
It was a subtle but very important check to Federal power.
In addition, Supreme Court justices have to be confirmed by the Senate; therefore, Senators would be more likely to confirm SC judges who believe in strong State rights.
That's a great point.
The solution to that is simple; all elected representatives - both Congress and Senate - along with their office staffers, are no longer federal employees, but of their respective States only. All pay and benefits are determined by the state legislatures.
Good job Trib!
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.