Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

REPEAL THE 17TH
Neals Nuze ^ | August 3, 2010 | Neal Boortz

Posted on 08/03/2010 6:25:01 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

There's an excellent Peggy Noonan column pointing out that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, not necessarily the Tea Party, is the model for conservative Republicans ought to follow. The entire column is really worth a read ... but this one paragraph stood out:

"Thus the new DNC scare ad, which features the usual "Jaws"-like monster music, and then the charge that the Tea Party and the GOP are "one and the same." Not only that, they're cooking up a plan to "get rid of" or privatize Social Security and Medicare, repeal the 17th Amendment, and abolish the departments of energy and education and the EPA."

Well, this is pretty much standard for Democrats in campaign mode. In every single election since 1952 Democrats have tried to frighten the catheters right out of our wizened citizens by telling them that the evil Republicans were going to take away their Social Security. For 58 years they've been pushing this guano, and after 58 years Social Security is still there.

The interesting bit here is now the Democrats are warning their constituents that the filthy Republicans want to repeal the 17th Amendment. Now THERE, my friends, is a fantastic idea.

Some of you will remember that I devoted a chapter in my last book, "Somebody's Gotta Say It" to repealing the 17th Amendment. Then Democrat Senator Zell Miller (he was once my boss, by the way) thought it was a good idea and actually introduced a resolution for a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the 17th before leaving the Senate. Interesting, isn't it? A Democrat calls for repeal and it becomes a Republican thing.

So ... what's the big deal? Just what does the 17th Amendment actually do? It makes the 50 State governments pretty much powerless in Washington, that's what. Under our Constitution --- our original Constitution --- the House of Representatives was supposed to represent the interests of the people in
Washington, and the Senate was supposed to represent the interests of state governments. The members of the House were elected by a vote of the people that the House members represented. Similarly, the members of the Senate were chosen by the States the Senate represented. The legislatures of the various states would appoint the Senators.

This all changed with the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913 allowing for the popular election of Senators. The 17th Amendment moved us closer to the form of government called "democracy" that our founding fathers abhorred. Some of you who have been reading the Nuze for a while know that during the time of the founding of our Republic it was considered slanderous to refer to someone as a democrat. It was considered to be an insult. The word "democrat" was an epithet. (Much as it is becoming today).

Here's something for you to chew on. New Mexico, like Arizona, is having a problem with the Mexican invasion. The problem is certainly more severe in Arizona, but New Mexico is facing difficulties as well. Now ... consider the fact that after the 17th Amendment became law the State of New Mexico no longer had an official representative in Washington DC. Yeah ... think about that. The country of Mexico has an official representative in DC ... the STATE of Mexico does not. Remember ... now both the Senators and Representatives represent the people. The state governments have no official representation. Foreign countries have ambassadors ... our own states have nothing.

Can you imagine how our own battle with illegal immigration might be different if the Senators still represented state governments? Illegals cost state governments tens of billions of dollars. The children of illegals have to be educated and their emergency medical needs must be tended to. Then there is the crime costs associated with illegals. Here are just a few estimates of the cost of illegal immigration to some individual states:

And then there's Arizona ... the cost there is over $1.3 billion a year. Arizona tries to do something to solve the problem. It's clear that the federal government will do nothing to control illegal immigration so long as The Community Organizer is in office ... so the Arizona legislature steps up. As soon as Arizona passes its law many other states reveal plans to do the same. The Obama steps up and orders the Justice Department to file a lawsuit against Arizona ... to sue Arizona for its attempt to enforce laws that the federal government refuses to support. How might this have all been different if Arizona, New Mexico and all of the other states considering passing laws to stem the invasion of illegals had official representation in Washington in the person of two Senators each? Obama needs the Senate to get his leftist, anti-individualist agenda passed. Is he going to tell the states to pound sand when it comes to immigration law? Hardly.

Then there's the issue of unfunded mandates. Medicaid would be the prime example here. There can't be a state in our nation that isn't wrestling with the federally-mandated costs of dealing with Medicaid. How do you think this situation might change if senators representing the states, and not the Medicaid beneficiaries, had a voice in policy?

So .. the Democrats want to use a Republican threat of repealing the 17th Amendment to frighten voters? This, if it is in fact true, should be seen as a positive ... not a negative. It's time to strengthen state governments at the expense of federal power.

Repeal the 17th? Let's do it!


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Mexico; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Arizona; US: New Mexico
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; 17thamendment; arizona; congress; democrats; gop; house; illegalaliens; lawsuit; medicaid; mexico; newmexico; obama; repeal; senate; states; teaparty; unfundedmandates
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last

1 posted on 08/03/2010 6:25:02 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I am very much for repealing the 17th, but let it not be forget that the previous system was deemed so corrupt that the 17th looked like the answer.

Wrong answer.

2 posted on 08/03/2010 6:29:09 PM PDT by sionnsar (IranAzadi|5yst3m 0wn3d-it's N0t Y0ur5:SONY|TV--it's NOT news you can trust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

An interesting concept.


3 posted on 08/03/2010 6:29:54 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (If November does not turn out well, then beware of December.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
cooking up a plan to "get rid of" or privatize Social Security and Medicare, repeal the 17th Amendment, and abolish the departments of energy and education and the EPA."

Sounds like a good start. Let's Roll!!!!

4 posted on 08/03/2010 6:35:05 PM PDT by rawcatslyentist (Jeremiah 50:31 Behold, I am against you, O you most proud, said the Lord God of hosts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The legislatures of the various states would appoint the Senators.

It's often said these days that that would be an improvement, but as corrupt and partisan are many state legislatures are, I'm not so sure things would be any better than a direct vote of the people.

The fact that each state has two senators regardless of population still does give extra weight and representation to the states in the Senate. I just don't see any vast improvement to be realized by returning the selection of senators to the politicians in state legislatures.

5 posted on 08/03/2010 6:43:02 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

No problem. It never passed.


6 posted on 08/03/2010 6:48:48 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Will88

I would think the states would never have allowed the central government to become this gigantic. It is too bad that the SC does not give a whit about the Constitution. Madison saw the 17th coming and tried to prevent it. But, since the court can’t read we lost the Republic.


7 posted on 08/03/2010 6:54:40 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Will88

I think it would make a difference. There was a reason that the progressives in power at that time wanted the 17th passed. How many unfunded mandates were shoved down on states before the 17th? At least if the state legislatures appointed the Senators they would vote in the interests of their states or be replaced, unlike today where people like McCain push issues like amnesty directly against their state’s best interests.


8 posted on 08/03/2010 7:04:33 PM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

NO DUMMIES, it is abolish the EDU,EPA and INTERIOR.
Idiots.


9 posted on 08/03/2010 7:06:19 PM PDT by Marty62 (marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat

There is currently more evidence that the Original 13th Amendment passed without question than there is that the 16th or 17th were ratified properly by a single state let alone the necessary 3/4. And it was removed while America Slept, lasted almost 50 years and needs to be revived. Consequently, We would have a much different America if we started following the Constitution by teaching it to everybody for what it says, not a bunch of lawyers in drag.

I say repeal Both, Never gonna get Congress to propose their own demise, but the country is ripe for maybe a Convention for a very specific purpose: repeal 16 and 17, reinstate the Original 13th. and maybe Add 1 forbidding the borrowing of money or of issuing credit.


10 posted on 08/03/2010 7:09:16 PM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat

I’m still not hearing anyone make the case that the politicians in state legislatures would select better senators for their states than the people.

We see what sort of factors come into play when governors are able to appoint a senator, even on a temporary basis. We see how Charlie Crist and Blagojevich handled it. The majorities in state legislatures would likely pick the old politician who held the most IOUs.

The primary way the constitution gave the states specific representation was by giving every state two senators, regardless of population. That is still the same, and that weighting is also in the electoral college.


11 posted on 08/03/2010 7:10:44 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

There is zero evidence that the 17th passed. Madison required a 100% vote for any change in state sufferage in the Senate. He knew the 17th (or something like it) would emasculate the states. We now have a dis-functional democracy with seats in the Senate bought with advertising. These guys have no interest in preserving State authorities.


12 posted on 08/03/2010 7:13:46 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Will88

The 17th(fraudulently passed) destroyed the Republic.


13 posted on 08/03/2010 7:15:57 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20
I think it would make a difference.

And it might not make the difference you expect. There are two Republican senators from Alabama: Sessions and Shelby. Are you aware that the Dims have a majority in the Alabama legislature? Would you prefer two more senators in the mold of Lincoln and Pryor, or Webb or Landrieu in the Senate rather than Sessions and Shelby?

I don't know state-by-state, but there are other southern legislatures still controlled by Dims that send Republicans to the Senate.

As bought and paid for as many state and federal legislators are, and as huge as the influence of lobbyists and money is now in the states as well as in DC, I think we are significantly better off selecting US senators by a vote of the people than by a vote of corrupt state legislators who are so influenced by lobbyists and interests groups.

14 posted on 08/03/2010 7:21:57 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

One thing that might help, would be to ban ALL political (campaign) contributions from outside of the state (for Senators) or the district (for Representatives).


15 posted on 08/03/2010 7:22:27 PM PDT by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat
The 17th(fraudulently passed) destroyed the Republic

Another sweeping statement with no narrative and evidence to support it.

16 posted on 08/03/2010 7:23:12 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat

I believe there are enough States currently pissed off at the Federal Government for one reason or another to actually Call for a Convention, they just need a little guidance by a handful of strong Governors whose legislatures back them, such as Arizona,Montana,Oklahoma... Wether or not the necessary 38 can be had is another problem. Congress nor the Administration nor the Courts can do a Damn Thing about it. That is the only way it will be done if at all.


17 posted on 08/03/2010 7:31:28 PM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: reg45

Why? We helped get Scott Brown elected; the Senators from other states vote for garbage that affects ALL OF US, like Obamacare.


18 posted on 08/03/2010 7:32:52 PM PDT by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Will88

What evidence? The states were kicked to the curb with the 17th. Senate seats are bought (with ad money). The mob votes for everything, there is no State interest in the Senate. This should be obvious. Without State representation in Senate, you have no Republic.


19 posted on 08/03/2010 7:32:52 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist
Vis a Vis Social Security here's a little history lesson:

History Lesson Your Social Security Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!

Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated that the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message was removed.[9]

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,

No longer Voluntary

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,

Now 7.65% on the first $90,000

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

No longer tax deductible

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program,

Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent

Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following:

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---- Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democrat controlled House and Senate.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -- Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democrat Party.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----- Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democrat Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democrat Party.

AND MY FAVORITE:

Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democrat Party gave these payments to them, even though the immigrants never paid a dime into the system!

------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- --------- Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

If enough people see this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, since some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so. Actions speak louder than bumper stickers. AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!

20 posted on 08/03/2010 7:40:16 PM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannolis. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat

You’re making a sweeping assumption that the states would be vastly better off if US Senators were still selected by the state legislatures rather than by a vote of the people as now.

You provide nothing but sweeping generalities to support that. And the political landscape today is different from what it was whenever that change was made. I’m not seeing any convincing discussion that today’s state legislatures would select better US Senators than the people in each state.

And you might consider #14, and decide whether you’d rather have Sessions and Shelby in the Senate, or some more of those ‘conservative’ Dims like Lincoln and Pryor and Webb and Landrieu and others.

“Although the Alabama Legislature is dominated by Democrats (with Democrats holding a 62-43 advantage in the House, and a 22-13 advantage in the Senate), the Legislature is considered one of the most conservative in the nation, with the majority of white Democrats being Conservative Democrats, although they are differentiated from the Republicans in the legislature by being somewhat more favorable to the desires of labor unions on economic issues.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Legislature

And Alabama is not the only state in the South that would replace conservative Republicans with ‘conservative’ Dims.

Is that what you want?


21 posted on 08/03/2010 7:41:10 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat

Madison’s formula:

People of State representation=House

State represntation=Senate

This is called a republic.

People of State do not equal State (separate entities)


22 posted on 08/03/2010 7:41:56 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Will88

I am not caring. I want the Republic restored. I do not argue the “what is better”. Democracy is the worst form of government so my preference is for the Republic model.. We have now with exception of the Electoral College a Democracy. The 17th destroyed the Republic model.


23 posted on 08/03/2010 7:47:40 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Will88
In the past Nebraska had Republican majorities in their legislature and two 'Rats in the Senate for many years (Exon, Zorinsky, Kerry). It works both ways. I still believe what I wrote earlier. This amendment was ratified in 1913 in the middle of the progressive era. There is a reason that the progressives wanted this passed and anything the progressives wanted to change in the constitution was not for the good of the country. Many Senators now are populists who regularly vote for things that help them personally and against what is best for their states. I think that would not have happened before the 17th amendment. Repealing the 16th, another progressive era amendment, would be a good idea also in my opinion.
24 posted on 08/03/2010 7:49:25 PM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Will88

I am not even arguing vastly better. All government models are flawed. The founders tried to keep us from a Democracy which they considered the worst form of government. “You have a Republic, if you can keep it.” We did not.


25 posted on 08/03/2010 7:51:53 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20

It was never ratified. Utah, for one did not vote for it, and there were several others. This violated the Constitution which says “no state, without it’s consent, can be deprived of it’s sufferage in the Senate”. (that means 100% concurrence). All states were deprived of representation in the Senate with or without their consent.


26 posted on 08/03/2010 7:57:41 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20

But after all is said and done, there is really only one question: In today’s political environment, would state legislatures or the people select US senators that would best serve the interests of the states?

I think state legislatures are subject to so many interest groups that the people now will do a better job of picking US senators.

Another thing from that earlier era when state legislatures selected senators: presidents could serve an indefinite number of terms as long as they kept winning elections. Would you like to go back to that?


27 posted on 08/03/2010 7:59:27 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

repeal anything and everything that a progressive has ever had a hand in :)


28 posted on 08/03/2010 7:59:27 PM PDT by surfer (To err is human, to really foul things up takes a Democrat, don't expect the GOP to have the answer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
they're cooking up a plan to "get rid of" or privatize Social Security and Medicare, repeal the 17th Amendment, and abolish the departments of energy and education and the EPA."

If ONLY ...!

29 posted on 08/03/2010 8:00:31 PM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat
The founders tried to keep us from a Democracy which they considered the worst form of government.

And the people only elect US Senators. They do not cast votes in the US Senate. That's still a representative Republic, and the states still have their representation per state in the senate, and not per population.

30 posted on 08/03/2010 8:03:04 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Will88

And that’s another thing. How do states whose people send Republicans to the U.S. Senate wind up with Dem majorities in their legisl00tures? There seems to be a disconnect here, one that leads, as you just pointed out, to a possibly UNFAVORABLE outcome with repealing the 17th.


31 posted on 08/03/2010 8:04:26 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Michelle Obama: the woman who ended "Diners, Drive-ins and Dives.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Will88

I need to make this clear.....People of State are not the States. The States are entities that got together to form this nation. The States are disenfranchised with the 17th. They are replaced by the people of the States. State of California is an entity and was part of the Republic. The State of California is no longer represented in the Senate. Without State representation you have no Republic.


32 posted on 08/03/2010 8:08:09 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat

Actually, we still do have a Republic (representatives elected/appointed directly or indirectly by the people for time-limited terms or terms of good behavior). Unfortunately, in THIS version of the Republic, the states have less of a say; they have been effectively neutered.


33 posted on 08/03/2010 8:08:14 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Michelle Obama: the woman who ended "Diners, Drive-ins and Dives.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Repeal 17th but add term limits.


34 posted on 08/03/2010 8:09:46 PM PDT by EmilyGeiger (Psalm 33:12 "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Will88

It is now a representative democracy not a Republic. All of Congress is elected by the mob.


35 posted on 08/03/2010 8:14:12 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

It is not a version of a Republic. A republic includes the States. This is a pure representative democracy.


36 posted on 08/03/2010 8:17:14 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat
The States are entities that got together to form this nation.

Representatives (people)of the states got together and formed the union. And state legislators are people, and they are the ones who would select US Senators if the 17th were repealed. In today's environment, I trust the people at large more than I trust state legislators.

37 posted on 08/03/2010 8:18:02 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Will88; Goreknowshowtocheat
And the people only elect US Senators. They do not cast votes in the US Senate. That's still a representative Republic, and the states still have their representation per state in the senate, and not per population.

You completely miss the point. The representatives of the House were to be chosen by the voters of individual states to represent the interests of the populations of those states. The representatives of the Senate were to be chosen by the state governments, not the voters of the states, to represent the interests of the states. This was an additional mechanism of check and balance between the populism of the House of Representatives and the states and between the states and the federal government. This meant that if the representatives of a few states with a large population tried to pull some kind of weird crap, a coalition of states, even very small states, could counter it in the Senate. The Senators would be beholden to the governors or the legislatures of their states, not to the same people who elected the representatives of the House. They don't have to fear yielding to populism in their states to keep their seat because they aren't representing the population of their state but the state itself.
38 posted on 08/03/2010 8:19:09 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: surfer
repeal anything and everything that a progressive has ever had a hand in :)

Including public libraries?

39 posted on 08/03/2010 8:19:24 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Michelle Obama: the woman who ended "Diners, Drive-ins and Dives.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
repeal anything and everything that a progressive has ever had a hand in :) Including public libraries?

Benjamin Franklin was a progressive?
40 posted on 08/03/2010 8:20:23 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat
It is now a representative democracy not a Republic. All of Congress is elected by the mob.

Nonsense. The people do not vote directly for any federal legislation, and they don't vote directly for the president.

The US is a representative Republic.

41 posted on 08/03/2010 8:20:45 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat

“This violated the Constitution which says “no state, without it’s consent, can be deprived of it’s sufferage in the Senate”. (that means 100% concurrence)”

There is more solid documentation that this is applicable to the 14th than the 17th. I agree with others that say it would be MUCH more politicized if done by the legislatures. Term limits is a better approach for improved representation.

But, in the final analysis, the legislative AND the executive branches of the Federal govt. are submissive to the lifetime appt. of the Federal judiciary - likely the biggest mistake of the Founding Fathers.


42 posted on 08/03/2010 8:23:01 PM PDT by secondamendmentkid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

Hmmm. I guess public libraries go back further than I thought.


43 posted on 08/03/2010 8:24:31 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Michelle Obama: the woman who ended "Diners, Drive-ins and Dives.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Will88

If you cannot see that the State of California is different from the people of California then I cannot help you. THE STATES ARE ENTITIES and were part of the model that made it a Republic. Replacing these entities with mob votes removes the essential feature of a Republic.


44 posted on 08/03/2010 8:24:52 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
You completely miss the point.

You completely miss the point. The point is, in today's political environment, who would do a better job of selecting US Senators, state legislators or the people. State legislatures are notoriously corrupt these days, and I much prefer that the people elect US Senators.

45 posted on 08/03/2010 8:24:56 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat; Will88
What evidence? The states were kicked to the curb with the 17th. Senate seats are bought (with ad money).

Often out of state money at that. A rich state like California can buy off senators from other states. The senate was intended to prevent the large states from dominating the country. The 17th amdmendment gives them even more influence. Ever wonder why Senator Fritz Hollings (aka Senator Foghorn Leghorn) always represented the Hollywood's and the recording industry's excessively restrictive interpretation of copyrights against his own constituents' interests?

46 posted on 08/03/2010 8:26:50 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat
If you cannot see that the State of California is different from the people of California then I cannot help you. THE STATES ARE ENTITIES and were part of the model that made it a Republic. Replacing these entities with mob votes removes the essential feature of a Republic.

Utter nonsense. Once we depart from the theoretical world, those ENTITIES are going to be represented by people, or they aren't going to be represented at all. And those people are go to be elected by the mob, as you like to term the citizens of the states.

47 posted on 08/03/2010 8:28:04 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Will88

I think that going with what the founders set up is a good idea. I think the founders has a much better grasp on this issue that you or I do. If Senators screwed their states over (voting for unfunded mandates, etc.) before the 17th, they were recalled by the legislature and replaced, now they are regularly rewarded with re-election for doing so. I think it is plainly evident that since the ratification of the 16th and 17th amendments things have kind of gone to hell in a handbasket. Getting rid of one or both would be a good start to setting things right.

PS: 53% of the people you say would elect better Senators voted for Obama in 2008.


48 posted on 08/03/2010 8:28:57 PM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Will88

Likewise...utter nonsense.


49 posted on 08/03/2010 8:34:17 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20

What is wrong with so much of what you have said is that you talk as if there is some unique, independent body out there with God-like wisdom who is electing those sainted state legislators who are so free of any populist influence.

The problem with that is, the same voters in a state who elect the reps. to the US House also elect the reps. and senators to the state legislatures. I just fail to see how those state legislators, elected by the voters in the states, will have such unique wisdom to select US Senators in a manner so superior to the voters in the state who are electing all the other office holders, including the state legislators.

The same voters acting on the same political beliefs and desires are electing all the people involved. The presumed independence and unique wisdom of the state legislatures to do a better job of selecting US Senators does not exist.


50 posted on 08/03/2010 8:46:15 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson