Posted on 05/03/2012 1:44:10 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Three of the four candidates seeking the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate in Virginia agree that efforts to repeal the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – which authorizes the direct election of senators – are impractical at best.
In post-debate interviews in Roanoke on Saturday, where all four candidates participated in a forum sponsored by the Republican Party of Virginia, the candidates expressed their views on the 17th Amendment in response to questions posed by the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner.
‘Repeal Amendment’ alternative
Jamie Radtke said that she does not think the repeal efforts are viable, “so I’ve been very supportive, as you know, of the Repeal Amendment,” proposed by William Howell, speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, and Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett.
The Repeal Amendment, Radtke explained, “says that if two-thirds of the state legislatures agree,” Americans can use that method to “repeal any act of Congress, any rule, any regulation, or any tax.”
That, she said, “gets to the heart of the 17th Amendment without taking any people’s right to vote away.”
Exponential corruption
E.W. Jackson said that he has “been asked that question on numerous occasions and my response is always the same: I’m not convinced it’s a good thing to do.”
Jackson explained that, “while people may feel” indirect elections “may make a senator more responsive to the needs of the state and the state legislature,” he thinks “the potential for corruption is exponential” because of “the deals that need to be cut to select who that person is going to be.”
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Yes, the same legislatures that determine how Presidential electors are appointed.
do you mean it would be more corrupt than it is now?? IMO by returning the Senate to State legislators for election or selection would breath some fresh air into the Senate and the power of lobbyists would be diminished. You do know that the unpublished rule for election to the Senate is that you already be a millionaire.
It is too tough to explain to the short attention span, poorly educated sheeple why the 17th Amendment should be repealed. You’d have much better luck starting with the 16th Amendment [Income Tax]. Sure there would be a tremendous shortfall in collections to the Treasury, but congress is bankrupting us a warp speed anyway!
Eliminate the Senate entirely and rename the House as "The Senate".
That would get us back pretty much to the state of things as Rome began their ascent to world power.
Yes.
At least those deals are between the Senator and the State (s)he represents, and ostensibly, for the benefit of the state.
What about the deals that are cut today between the Senators themselves, and the special intersts?
What about the deals that are required to support fundraising for 33 of the most expensive elections that occur every two years?
I'd rather see the deal-making contained the states themselves and their own politicians, than see Senators prostituting themselves nationally in order to raise election funds.
Repealing the 17th amendment is about campaign finance reform -- it eliminates 100 campaigns and those campaigns' need for cash.
-PJ
As I understand it, the well-off and the accomplished were meant to be appointed to the Senate prior to the 17th Amendment as well. Since the well-off weren’t laboring in the fields and shooting their own food, they would have more time for reflection and thought, which would be reflected in how the Senate acted.
It doesn’t matter if is is repealed. Obama appointed judges would find that it is still somewhere in the emanations of the penumbra.
The Constitution says whatever 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices say it says.
Well there would still be ‘campainging’ and lobbying done at the state level by people seeking to be appointed. It all doesn’t magically go away. On the national level there would still probalby be PAC lobbying and efforts targeting states to get people to call their congressmen to vote for or against certain potential appointees, or to recommend appointees.
I think the statement saying it eliminates campaigns is really not as accurate as at first glance you may think. It may shift more efforts to internal campaigns in-state and a few select national targets either side believes they need - we are talking about numbers determining which party controls the US Senate, after all.
One of the things that led to the enactment of the 17th Amendment was a series of documented instances in which special interests (especially railroad corporations) bribed state legislators to get their favored candidates elected to the U.S. Senate.
A more politically acceptable alternative would be the amendment proposal floating around that would give states a Veto over the federal government’s debt limit. This would throttle the feds where it hurt- in their ability to spend, spend and spend.
Voters are much more concerned about the level of federal spending and debt than the relationship of the Senate to the States. Thus, the hill to climb is not as high as with the repeal of the 17th.
However, I still think it's a diminished effort.
For one thing, Senate campaign spending today is a bi-annual spigot of cashflow to the MSM who run the media ads. If you move to a more back-channel campaign, it cuts off the transfer of cash to the MSM.
That, by itself, is a big win to me.
-PJ
Also, the 17th amendment was ratified in a wave of progressive activism in 1913 that also gave us the 16th amendment. I wonder if the 17th would have passed if it was by itself?
-PJ
I was led to believe the senate was to be well educated elders of the state - leaders the people respected. I think the founders meant for them to be land owners as well. Some of today's senators actually move to the WDC area giving up their state domicile.
I was led to believe the senate was to be well educated elders of the state - leaders the people respected. I think the founders meant for them to be land owners as well. Some of today's senators actually move to the WDC area giving up their state domicile.
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.