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

Skip to comments.

A lesson for Sean Hannity on the 17th amendment
Canada Free Press ^ | December 15, 2010 | Greg Halvorson

Posted on 12/16/2010 1:04:46 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

A recent exchange between Sean Hannity and one of his listeners provides an opportunity to educate the public on the 17th amendment of the United States Constitution. Sean, defending the 10th amendment - which grants those powers not specifically delegated to the United States to the States respectively - did not agree with the caller’s wish to see the 17th amendment repealed, and seemed confused as to the amendment’s implications. The 17th amendment, for the edification of Sean, was enacted in the magical year, 1913 - the year that gave us the income tax and the Fed! - and stripped the power of state legislatures to elect Senators, delegating this duty to the people of each state, respectfully.

This damaged states’ rights and weakened the 10th amendment. As I stated in an e-mail:

Dear Sean—concerning the 17th amendment, the argument for its repeal absolutely centers around states’ rights. If Senators are elected by elected reps and senators, they are more likely to defend their state against federal encroachments (upholding the 10th amendment), than they are if elected by the general population. Any federal program - ObamaCare, the financial reform bill, etc., - which increases burdens on state budgets would not sit well with Senators answerable to congressional bodies in their state.

So, yes, the 17th amendment lacked foresight. As unprincipled Senators in all 50 states swagger about the Capitol, schmoozing with lobbyists and expanding government, it’s important to know why. On November 2, 2010, the People voted to defend the Constitution. But while all men are equal...

(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; 17thamendment; 1913; congress; hannity; legislatures; repeal; seanhannity; senate; states
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

1 posted on 12/16/2010 1:04:50 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; All

Correction at end of paragraph one: “each state respectively.” I doubt that and respectfulness was involved.


2 posted on 12/16/2010 1:08:17 PM PST by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Generally speaking, Sean is a putz. With great minds like Levin and Rush around, who needs a lightweight like Hannity?


3 posted on 12/16/2010 1:09:12 PM PST by albie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gleeaikin

Hannity is not the brightest bulb out there. He doesn’t know any topic that is not listed on current talking points.


4 posted on 12/16/2010 1:09:35 PM PST by SFC Chromey (We are at war with Islamofascists inside and outside our borders, now ACT LIKE IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Wasn't one of the goals of the 17th amendment to remove corruption of party bosses and take the huge sums of money out of the process?

That worked out well didn't it?

Now we have external influence picking the Senator that is supposed to be representing YOUR State.

5 posted on 12/16/2010 1:09:44 PM PST by frogjerk (I believe in unicorns, fairies and pro-life Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; All

Correction to correction in comment #2. Any respectfulness, not “and respectfulness.”


6 posted on 12/16/2010 1:10:06 PM PST by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Revoking the 16th and 17th amendment would go a long way to returning the power to the People and the States respectively.
7 posted on 12/16/2010 1:11:08 PM PST by frogjerk (I believe in unicorns, fairies and pro-life Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SFC Chromey; albie
Hannity is not the brightest bulb out there. He doesn’t know any topic that is not listed on current talking points.

And I suppose there are many Americans who need a tutorial level.

8 posted on 12/16/2010 1:20:38 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
--yep--the railroads and "Rockefeller" were the big bug-a-boos then-

-does anybody seriously think that having the present day California or New York legislatures electing senators would be a great improvement?

9 posted on 12/16/2010 1:26:25 PM PST by rellimpank (--don't believe anything the media or government says about firearms or explosives--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

In keeping with the Founders intent, yes it would be an improvement.


10 posted on 12/16/2010 1:30:55 PM PST by SFC Chromey (We are at war with Islamofascists inside and outside our borders, now ACT LIKE IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Dickey the toe sucker is on Hannity *again*

He says voters like Palin, they like Huckabee and they like.....*Sean says Newt* they like.....*Sean says Newt* they like.....*Sean says Newt* ..Uh Newt...

It’s so ridiculous.


11 posted on 12/16/2010 1:33:18 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
-does anybody seriously think that having the present day California or New York legislatures electing senators would be a great improvement?

It would be a different dynamic that would be more originalist in action. The 17th amendment is a complete and utter failure.

12 posted on 12/16/2010 1:34:25 PM PST by frogjerk (I believe in unicorns, fairies and pro-life Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
and think of the massive amounts of money now used in senatorial campaigns would be saved if State legislatures selected senators. I am all for getting rid of the 17th!!!.
13 posted on 12/16/2010 1:34:28 PM PST by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elpadre
and think of the massive amounts of money now used in senatorial campaigns would be saved if State legislatures selected senators. I am all for getting rid of the 17th!!!.

Don't kid yourself, the money will just be spent in other ways. Trying to take the money out of politics is like trying to take the money out of prostitution. It cannot be done because they are basically the same.

14 posted on 12/16/2010 1:36:34 PM PST by frogjerk (I believe in unicorns, fairies and pro-life Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
look at the big picture - yes - a big improvement at several levels.
15 posted on 12/16/2010 1:36:54 PM PST by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SFC Chromey
And yet, far too many folks don't seem to realize that decisions we make today will have effects many years from now- in some cases, effects that were never intended.

Just as the 17th amendment destroyed the independence and sovereignty of the states, many of the "progressive" programs since the late sixties have almost destroyed the family structure.

16 posted on 12/16/2010 1:37:43 PM PST by Repealthe17thAmendment (Is this field required?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Hannity is still around?


17 posted on 12/16/2010 1:39:14 PM PST by crosshairs (The word for actor in Greek is hypocrite (its true).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

I disagree - letting the state legislatures pick senators might even get a school teacher, fireman, or a blue collar worker, with some political skills into the senate. It takes a multimillionaire to get in now. Get rid of the 17th!!


18 posted on 12/16/2010 1:41:40 PM PST by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Dear Sean—concerning the 17th amendment, the argument for its repeal absolutely centers around states’ rights. If Senators are elected by elected reps and senators, they are more likely to defend their state against federal encroachments (upholding the 10th amendment), than they are if elected by the general population. Any federal program - ObamaCare, the financial reform bill, etc., - which increases burdens on state budgets would not sit well with Senators answerable to congressional bodies in their state.

Without weighing how correct or not the author is about any expectations of WHAT the effects of the 17th amendment were, or would still be, those effects, while maybe laudable, were NOT the core purpose of the 17rh amendment, and its requirement that federal Senators be selected by their respective state legislatures.

That core purpose is more related to what was suppose to be the federal structure of the republic than the possible corollary effects of the mandate of the 17th amendment. That core purpose of the 17th amendment was that the Senate was intended to represent "the states" of the united republic, as entities requiring direct representation for them, in their own right, just as "the people" of the united republic have their direct representation in the House of Representatives.

The method of selecting senators required by the 17th amendment was chosen BECAUSE it meant that "the states", as sovereign entities of the united republic CHOSE THEIR representatives to the federal body intended to represent THEM, not "the people" at large. THAT is why its repeal was destructive - it severely reduced the federal nature of the republic, by eliminating the DIRECT representation of the states in the federal legislature.

19 posted on 12/16/2010 1:46:28 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
--yeah--I'm thinking Senator John Burton--that would be a great dynamic, allright--(sarc)

--by the way he was my congressional rep thirty-some years ago until his staff resigned him, in effect--

20 posted on 12/16/2010 1:46:30 PM PST by rellimpank (--don't believe anything the media or government says about firearms or explosives--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

This stuff always cracks me up. One, that Hannity is so ignorant. And two, that anyone thinks the 17th amendment has anything to do with our troubles.


21 posted on 12/16/2010 1:48:59 PM PST by Huck (Antifederalist BRUTUS should be required reading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SFC Chromey

Yeah, I find that I can’t listen to him (on his radio show) for more than a few minutes at a time. Too much self-promotion (the Conservative Underground, indeed!), too few interesting insights. He likes to provoke guests and callers (especially) so that he call talk over them.


22 posted on 12/16/2010 1:54:35 PM PST by bagman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SFC Chromey

I was surprised at Hannity’s response on the 17th. The 17th destroyed the Republic as instituted by the founders. The States are forced to rely on what the SC can give them under the 10th (not much). Of course, the sweetest thing about the 17th is it did not pass and thus landed in the “do nothing about fraud” area where the gatekeepers are 9 black robed politicians. Madison put a fence there (requiring a unanimous vote for changing state suferrage in the Senate)and tyranny folks jumped lightly over it.


23 posted on 12/16/2010 2:00:12 PM PST by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SFC Chromey
Hannity is not the brightest bulb out there. He doesn’t know any topic that is not listed on current talking points.

I was going to say exactly the same thing, lightbulb reference and all...

I can't for the life of me figure out why he's successful. Inarticulate, uninformed, unoriginal, and his most popular (judging by repeat frequency) "challenging" callers are screamingly illiterate blacks. "With great specificity"...


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

24 posted on 12/16/2010 2:00:44 PM PST by The Comedian (Government: Saving people from freedom since time immemorial.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

The original constitution held that Senators were selected by the state legislatures, not the 17th Amendment. The 17th Amendment’s ratification destroyed the federal structure, not its repeal, since is WAS NOT repealed. The 17th was the thing mandating popular election of Senators.


25 posted on 12/16/2010 2:11:37 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (up)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: crosshairs

Hannity is ignorant. I stopped listening some time ago. I listen to Michael Medved (who can be tedious at times).

Hannity’s show is being dropped in Philadelphia. I wonder if others are starting to catch on that his show is nothing more than one long commercial interspersed with some ridiculous commentary and ranting. The only thing that saves Hannity is that he has some very good guests.


26 posted on 12/16/2010 2:23:34 PM PST by William Tell 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

-does anybody seriously think that having the present day California or New York legislatures electing senators would be a great improvement?


Well, these states couldn’t do much worse. And at least they would only be electing their own senators. I recall from when I was growing up in Oregon that Packwood received much more funding from NYers than he did from his own state.


27 posted on 12/16/2010 2:24:32 PM PST by Hieronymus (It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged. --G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa.

You are not only correct, but I knew you were correct BEFORE I wrote what I did, until an Alzheimers moment, during my writing, caused me to reverse the mandates of the Constitution, before and after the 17th amendment. Thanks for the correction.

On the original part, of WHY, federal senators were to be chosen by THEIR state’s legislature, I still say it was for the “federal” nature of one house of the federal legislature, to represent the states, as entities requiring their own direct representation in the federal government, and not the corollary effects that may have arisen from that method.


28 posted on 12/16/2010 2:41:09 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

Wells considering this is Sean’s day job you’d think he would know this and or realize this.....


29 posted on 12/16/2010 3:13:41 PM PST by CommieCutter (A Centrist Democrat is now defined as: between Socialism and Communism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: albie
"Generally speaking, Sean is a putz"

No he isn't. He's a moron.

30 posted on 12/16/2010 3:32:33 PM PST by skimbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian

He’s yet to figure out the proper usage of “me” and “I”.”


31 posted on 12/16/2010 3:46:23 PM PST by Cobra64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Sean Hannity is an idiot, and sets out to prove it daily.

The man is more partisan than conservative.

32 posted on 12/16/2010 3:47:05 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

If people think repealing the 17th amendment will solve anything, they only need look at the recent record of lame dumbass corrupt liberal nobodies who got appointed last term in the Senate to be proved wrong. We had 6 of them and if *any* of them were in the top half of ‘good senators’ I didnt notice.

They were dregs.

Burris in Illinois - a left liberal Obama rubber stamp, Blago appointed and a joke
Bennett in Co - appointed, now elected. What’s the difference.

Some left-liberal nobody from Delaware.

In Florida, Charlie Crist’s right hand man. Strong conservative? NOT! Marco Rubio is so much better ... yet Marco would not have been Senator under appointment system.

There you go. Repeal the 17th amendment and you’ll get the same group of smug political elitists, except it will be HARDER to get rid ofthem because they will be indirectly and not directly accountable to voters.


33 posted on 12/16/2010 3:51:13 PM PST by WOSG (Carpe Diem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

You’re citing Senators appointed by governors on the death of a sitting senator...not selected by state legislatures as per pre-17th Amendment guidelines.


34 posted on 12/16/2010 3:54:38 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Hey, where’s my courtesy ping?


35 posted on 12/16/2010 3:57:28 PM PST by Repeal The 17th (...and now for something completely different...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian
"I can't for the life of me figure out why he's successful."

Because chicks think he's cute.

Hannity reminds me of an old Bobcat Goldthwaite stand up bit when he talked about getting his SAT results. His score was in the bottom 5th percentile. He rationalized that if he was in a room of 100 people there would be four people dumber than him, and he mused, "I could be their leader!"

36 posted on 12/16/2010 3:59:46 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

Of course, states like CA would appoint idiots like we have now Boxer and Feinstein. However, we turned 680 seats in the states in one election, the legislature is a far easier target than getting to pick the millionaires that buy the Senate seats. You can unseat a local pretty easily, but unseating a Senator requires huge sums of money.


37 posted on 12/16/2010 4:10:09 PM PST by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Shirley, you must agree it is a contributing factor.


38 posted on 12/16/2010 4:16:43 PM PST by Repeal The 17th (...and now for something completely different...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
He rationalized that if he was in a room of 100 people there would be four people dumber than him, and he mused, "I could be their leader!"

ROFL, that's awesome.


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

39 posted on 12/16/2010 4:18:53 PM PST by The Comedian (Government: Saving people from freedom since time immemorial.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Repealthe17thAmendment

I have to agree with you.


40 posted on 12/16/2010 4:19:19 PM PST by Repeal The 17th (...and now for something completely different...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

Nope, but people can get away from a State, leaving the country is a different matter.


41 posted on 12/16/2010 5:02:37 PM PST by itsahoot (We the people, allowed Republican leadership to get us here, only God's Grace can get us out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

He would be another unknown, had Rush not let him take the EIB chair occasionally. I think Rush regrets it.


42 posted on 12/16/2010 5:09:20 PM PST by itsahoot (We the people, allowed Republican leadership to get us here, only God's Grace can get us out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
Don't kid yourself, the money will just be spent in other ways. Trying to take the money out of politics is like trying to take the money out of prostitution. It cannot be done because they are basically the same.

I'd like to see your reasons why the money will still be spent.

To me, the money goes towards endless Boxer and Fiorina ads every 15 minutes on every channel on my TV set for months and months during the primaries and during the general. Are you saying that ads like this will still continue if the state legislature did the chusing?

What about bribery laws? Where will the money be spent on the state legislature selection of Senators that won't be illegal?

-PJ

43 posted on 12/16/2010 5:14:34 PM PST by Political Junkie Too ("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
If people think repealing the 17th amendment will solve anything, they only need look at the recent record of lame dumbass corrupt liberal nobodies who got appointed last term in the Senate to be proved wrong.

Good point. The idea that state legislatures would magically become something they haven't been in generations if they had the power to choose Senators doesn't hold much water.

The Amendment went through because if the Senate weren't popularly elected it would lose power, as all legislatures that aren't popularly elected have done in the last 200 years.

The Senate would have become merely a formality, a rubber stamp, and power would have passed to the House, which could claim with more accuracy to represent "the people."

44 posted on 12/16/2010 5:17:20 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

“You’re citing Senators appointed by governors on the death of a sitting senator...not selected by state legislatures as per pre-17th Amendment guidelines.”

True, but why would state leges be any different? Same class of political animal.
And you DO know that pre-17th amendment many states were electing Senators popularly anyway. Right?


45 posted on 12/16/2010 8:30:40 PM PST by WOSG (Carpe Diem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64
He’s yet to figure out the proper usage of “me” and “I”.”

The loss of control of symbolic expression is the final step in being conquered by those who have mastered symbolic expression.

s'up. no problem.


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

46 posted on 12/16/2010 8:37:37 PM PST by The Comedian (Government: Saving people from freedom since time immemorial.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
"True, but why would state leges be any different? Same class of political animal."

Not quite. State legislators tend to be a lot more responsive to their constituents. Many are term limited, and I'm not aware of any state legislators that sit comfortably for six long years, although there very well could be some. All that makes them a very different class of political animal.

"And you DO know that pre-17th amendment many states were electing Senators popularly anyway. Right?"

Of course, but I would make two caveats to that. Prior to the passage of the 17th, I would submit that the average voter had a much better grasp of the concepts of federalism and voted accordingly; I would venture a guess that the common mischaracterization of our system as a "democracy" built a lot of steam following that time, and that has been a philosophically detrimental force. My second rejoinder would be that as long as some senate seats were by appointment, it becomes more difficult for labor unions and other lobby groups to nationalize them. You could argue that would free up more resources to target the seats in popularly elected states, but in a sense, they'd only be getting less for more.

47 posted on 12/16/2010 8:53:05 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj; GOPsterinMA

Dear G-d, they never stop with this!

I still don’t want Mike Madigan appointing my Senators!


48 posted on 12/17/2010 3:02:30 AM PST by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

“He would be another unknown, had Rush not let him take the EIB chair occasionally. I think Rush regrets it”.

...Rush doesn’t regret it. He likes to see people get ahead and he enjoys helping with that. Sean is no competition for Rush. It’s all about looks and the “fair and balanced” routine with Sean’s success. It’s about women 35-54. That’s why he does well on TV. Rush didn’t do so well.


49 posted on 12/17/2010 3:46:51 AM PST by albie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

“Trying to take the money out of politics is like trying to take the money out of prostitution. It cannot be done because they are basically the same.”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Why is everyone who comments on our politicians so disrespectful...of prostitutes?


50 posted on 12/17/2010 5:23:48 AM PST by RipSawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 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