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


1 posted on 11/21/2012 6:14:07 PM PST by ReaganÜberAlles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last
To: ReaganÜberAlles

Too many of the rank and file citizen are too uneducated to realize that the states themselves as an entity need representation too...


2 posted on 11/21/2012 6:18:06 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ReaganÜberAlles

...as if an Amendment to the Constitution (or the repeal thereof) would mean any more than the Constitution itself, which, of course, is no longer a “controlling legal authority”..


3 posted on 11/21/2012 6:18:22 PM PST by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ReaganÜberAlles

Too many of the rank and file citizen are too uneducated to realize that the states themselves as an entity need representation too...


4 posted on 11/21/2012 6:18:26 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ReaganÜberAlles
Yes, Repeal It!

There is a sizable bloc of Tea Party supporters calling for repeal of the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 17th Amendment establishes direct, popular election of U.S. Senators, superseding Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 1 and 2 which empowered state legislatures to elect senators.

Here are some supporting articles:

17th Amendment Mudslinging

Tea Party Wants to Dump 17th Amendment?

Should We Repeal the 17th Amendment?

Repeal Direct Election of Senators?
5 posted on 11/21/2012 6:22:30 PM PST by VitacoreVision
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ReaganÜberAlles

Correct! Ironically, this amendment allowing people to vote for senators took power away from the people in each state. The state lost the power of having senators fight for what the states needed, and senators from various states joined together against what their individual states deemed necessary. Do away with this ASAP.


6 posted on 11/21/2012 6:22:46 PM PST by roadcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ReaganÜberAlles

Agree Heartily!


7 posted on 11/21/2012 6:24:27 PM PST by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cripplecreek

Ping.


8 posted on 11/21/2012 6:25:43 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ReaganÜberAlles
I agree that we need to repeal the 17th. along with the 16th, the 19th and anyone named Woodrow or Roosevelt
10 posted on 11/21/2012 6:29:04 PM PST by Cowman (How can the IRS seize property without a warrant if the 4th amendment still stands?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ReaganÜberAlles

I think we should just redo the whole thing and have the President chosen by the House from amongst the Senators (chosen by state legislatures) and Governors.

But if we could do that, can’t we just abolish the income tax amendment??


11 posted on 11/21/2012 6:29:46 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cripplecreek

For your consideration Cripple.


12 posted on 11/21/2012 6:35:26 PM PST by KC_Lion (Build the America you want to live in at your address, and keep looking up.-Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ReaganÜberAlles

I would say that you would need a state to disobey the 17th amendment and elect senators via the state legislature. This would set up a supreme court case which could negate the 17th amendment. Or since the constitution allows the states to choose senators maybe nothing will happen other than congress not allowing them to be seated. It would be interesting if a state had the cajones to do it.


14 posted on 11/21/2012 6:38:28 PM PST by PJammers (I can't help it... It's my idiom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ReaganÜberAlles

No. I don’t trust the legislature.


18 posted on 11/21/2012 6:46:29 PM PST by RichInOC (Palin 2016: The Perfect Storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ReaganÜberAlles

The 17TH removed a major check of Washington’s power in some very insidious ways. Our supreme Court rules at the pleasure of the Senate. Have you wondered why it seems that even conservative justices trivialize States rights? Our Supreme Court is no longer beholden to the individual states power to appoint the people who can deny their tenure.


20 posted on 11/21/2012 6:52:22 PM PST by rsobin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ReaganÜberAlles

Under Woodrow Wilson we got the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th Amendments as well as the War on Drugs, the Federal Reserve, and segregation of the military (he was a racist, too). And we thought Obama was bad.


23 posted on 11/21/2012 6:56:38 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Why is the government more concerned about protecting a microbe on Mars than an unborn baby here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ReaganÜberAlles

The 17th amendment killed the Senate and created two Houses. The Senate was designed to be a direct check on Federal power by making the States part of the Federal government. The first batch of Progressives identified the Senate as the key element of the Republic and they destroyed it.


26 posted on 11/21/2012 6:59:32 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ReaganÜberAlles

Utterly and completely idiotic. Why don’t we just have a King??

People should vote for their Representatives ... good or bad. Don’t like it? Then stop pretending you want to live in a democracy.


27 posted on 11/21/2012 7:03:09 PM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ReaganÜberAlles

Great idea. It would mean that people would need to pay attention to who they elect as state representatives.

It is highly reasonable.

Of course we can’t even get rid of Obama — as clear as a case for tossing out a bozo that there ever was — so what are the chances something like this would pass with an electorate of dunderheads?


34 posted on 11/21/2012 7:18:16 PM PST by garjog (Heroes Died. Obama Lied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ReaganÜberAlles

Stupid idea.
Most states have one party rule guaranteeing that the party in power would only appoint one of their own.

The only cure to our current problem of corrupt senators and representatives is term limits. As of now most of these guys get lifetime jobs once eleceted and are no longer responsible to the people.

Corrupt morons like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Tom Daschle with a few thousand votes become co-presidents for life.


37 posted on 11/21/2012 7:25:06 PM PST by oldbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ReaganÜberAlles

Absolutely. All for it!!!


49 posted on 11/21/2012 9:01:23 PM PST by RatRipper (Self-centeredness, greed, envy, deceit and lawless corruption has killed this once great nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ReaganÜberAlles; All
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."

With all due respect, 17A did not delegate to Congress any more powers than it already had.

I have a few points to make about 17A. First, I question if one of the basic principles of the Constituton, the division of federal and state government powers, has ever been consistently taught in the nation's schools, both public and private.

Next, noting that electronic communications was still in its infancy by 1913, and also that most USA citizens were rurallites when the Progressive Movement spooked citizens into pressuring their state lawmakers to ratify 17A, I'll bet the average adult citizen, possibly even state lawmakers, didn't know what Congress's Article I, Section 8 limited powers were.

And the only reason that I can think of for ruralites wanting the right to directly elect their federal senators is the following. Perhaps they wanted a bigger voice in how Congress managed the postal service, the postal service basically the only daily domestic service that the Founders had authorized Congress to regulate as evidenced by Clause 7 of Section 8.

Again, I'll bet ruralites didn't know what Section 8 is.

Next, the 17A and the Progressive Movement to reform the electoral college are different sides of the same coin imo. More specifically, the goal of the Progressive Movement is arguably to unconstitutionally centralize government power in DC by doing the following. The Progressive Movement is doing so by first having successfully wrestled control of the federal senate from state lawmakers, wrestling control of the Oval Office from the electoral college the final major hurdle.

52 posted on 11/21/2012 9:46:48 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

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