Skip to comments.A lesson for Sean Hannity on the 17th amendment
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to the United States to the States respectively - did not agree with the callers wish to see the 17th amendment repealed, and seemed confused as to the amendments implications.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 Seanconcerning 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, its 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 ...
Correction at end of paragraph one: “each state respectively.” I doubt that and respectfulness was involved.
Generally speaking, Sean is a putz. With great minds like Levin and Rush around, who needs a lightweight like Hannity?
Hannity is not the brightest bulb out there. He doesn’t know any topic that is not listed on current talking points.
That worked out well didn't it?
Now we have external influence picking the Senator that is supposed to be representing YOUR State.
Correction to correction in comment #2. Any respectfulness, not “and respectfulness.”
And I suppose there are many Americans who need a tutorial level.
-does anybody seriously think that having the present day California or New York legislatures electing senators would be a great improvement?
In keeping with the Founders intent, yes it would be an improvement.
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.
It would be a different dynamic that would be more originalist in action. The 17th amendment is a complete and utter failure.
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.
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.
Hannity is still around?
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!!
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.
--by the way he was my congressional rep thirty-some years ago until his staff resigned him, in effect--
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.