Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Long past time to repeal the 17th Amendment

Posted on 11/21/2012 6:14:03 PM PST by ReaganÜberAlles

"What's wrong with the people choosing their own Senators?

For starters, this amendment strips power from the states, which ultimately strengthens the federal government. This Amendment removes an important check and balance between the federal government and the states."

TOPICS: Government; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: 17thamendment; repeal
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 last
To: Impy

Egan isn’t likely to be in much danger, anyhow. He is the son of the 1st statehood former Governor Bill Egan, and has already served as Juneau Mayor (and Juneau is a Dem enclave).

61 posted on 11/22/2012 8:58:22 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Impy; AuH2ORepublican; BillyBoy

435 is such an odd number (of course, it was briefly 437 from 1959-1963 when AK & HI were added, each then having 1 House member, with Inouye unimaginably still serving 53 years later). I don’t necessarily see a problem with increasing it to 501 seats (keeping an odd number to avoid a possible tie). That would assure a majority of states would get at least 1 additional member.

I think at least 1 FReeper or more have suggested increasing the membership to 1,000 or even 10,000. While 1,000 phased in over some time might be feasible, 10,000 would be too unwieldy and impossible to keep track of. If we adhered to the 30,000 per member requirement specified in the Constitution, we would have almost 10,500 members. California alone would have nearly 1,300 members (a nightmarish scenario). It would be like the NH House applied nationwide.

62 posted on 11/22/2012 9:28:21 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; Impy; BillyBoy

The Constitution set 30,000 persons as a minimum per CD, not as the ideal forever. I think that if we are to look at the original composition of the House and Senate for guidance a more instructive lesson can be drawn from the ratio of senators to representatives, which has an effect on the relative weight given to large states in the Electoral College, since each state gets the same number of EVs as the sum of its senators and representatives. The First Congress was composed of 26 senators and 65 representatives, a ratio of 2.5 representatives per senator. The ratio currently is 4.35 representatives, meaning that each large state has a heavier weight in the Electoral College than was the case originally (and, one could argue, was intended by the Framers: the 2 “freebie EVs” given to each state were 28.57% of possible EVs originally and only 18.96% today. I would amend the Constitution to increase the number of senators to 3 per state (which would have the added benefit of giving every state the opportunity to elect a senator (and thus affect control of the Senate) in every biennial election, so you don’t, say, shut out Virginians from U.S. Senate elections in 2010) and set the total number of representatives at 3 times the number of members of the Senate (unless that would yield an even number, in which case it would be 1+ the product of 3 times the number of senators), which with 50 states would give us 150 senators and 451 representatives.

Another benefit of such an amendment is that current states would not see their number of representatives drop in the Census following the admission of a new state; if a new state were admitted, the House wouldn’t revert to 435 members at the next Census, it would increase by 9 members. That could be very important going forward, since I think that we could see a lot of new states coming in, not just Puerto Rico and New Columbia (DC plus the DC suburbs in MD and VA), but also 4 new states being carved out of CA (I would split CA into 2 heavily Dem states (Bay Area and LA) and 3 GOP-leaning states), 3 new states carved out of TX (I would split TX into 4 GOP states) and 2 new states being carved out of FL (I would split FL into 1 heavily Dem state (Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroes Counties) and 2 GOP states). And if we could form the State of Chicaukee (Cook and Lake Counties in IL, Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha Counties in WI and Lake County in IN), or some other über-Democrat states that would leave the remaining states comfortably Republican, even better.

63 posted on 11/22/2012 7:33:45 PM PST by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican; BillyBoy

I found out why, Alaska staggers it’s State Senate elections even in a redistricting year (I don’t like that, every seat should be up). But the redistricting board ruled that all the seats up in 2014 changed so much that they all must be up for election, except Egan’s which stayed mostly the same.

He’s the rat committee chair BTW, one of 2 democrats to join with the new GOP majority.

Such a small State Senate breeds that kind of thing.

64 posted on 11/22/2012 8:54:21 PM PST by Impy (Boehner for President - 2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
Sure they can, Prohibition was repealed
65 posted on 11/22/2012 10:05:34 PM PST by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ReaganÜberAlles

Get your priorities in order. 1st repeal the Leftwing media — the core of our problem.

66 posted on 11/22/2012 10:07:15 PM PST by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric didn’t say please.

67 posted on 11/23/2012 8:31:21 AM PST by ReaganÜberAlles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: roadcat

Without the 17th Amendment the Internet would be taxed. Be careful what you wish for.

68 posted on 11/24/2012 9:00:41 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

I live in California. Taxation of the Internet is already happening. Democrats here pushed Amazon and others into collecting sales tax. I’m against any taxation of the Internet. But my voice is not heard by the idiot Senators like Feinstein and Boxer who are picked by the libs in SF, and they welcome taxation of the Internet. They champion far-left liberal causes rather than things that benefit all Californians. If senators were chosen by the state legislature then at least we would have senators representing state interests. California is going to hell partly because of the 17th Amendment.

69 posted on 11/25/2012 4:56:20 PM PST by roadcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

Three Senators says the man of gold
too much to contemplate in the nutmeg state
Linda once, Linda twice, Linda three times then

The seduction of campaign glamour
too much even for the religious right
Puerto Rico voices will set us straight

70 posted on 11/26/2012 7:53:55 PM PST by campaignPete R-CT (campaigned for local conservatives only)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 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
Topics · Post Article

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