Posted on 02/26/2013 7:20:37 AM PST by FatMax
One hundred years ago, the United States ratified an amendment to the Constitution that changed the way America chose its senators. The amendment's supporters said that senators directly elected by the people would not only be more democratic, but also less corrupt and less susceptible to special interest influence.
Instead of reducing corruption, however, changing the method of Senate selection provided entirely new avenues of political exploitation by fundamentally transforming our federal government. Most importantly, the amendment destroyed the federalist structure that the Founding Fathers installed to protect state sovereignty.
Today, members of the Georgia House of Representatives seek to restore state representation to the federal government by reviving the Founders' original intent. The goal of House Bill 273 is “to protect the sovereignty of the states from the federal government and to give each individual state government representation in the federal legislative branch of government” by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.
Of course, this resolution would not necessitate any action or response from the federal government should it pass, but it could spark a national debate on the concept of federalism, unconstitutional government, and the Founders' original intent.
Why was the Seventeenth Amendment ratified?
As the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, they understood that free and independent states, fresh from a long and costly war with England, would not approve of a charter that required them to totally surrender their sovereignty to a new federal government. To balance the legitimate concerns of the states with the need to preserve the union and form a national government for mutual protection and prosperity, the Founders chose a federalist system of divided powers between the states and the proposed federal government.
They also passed a Bill of Rights, ensuring that any power not specifically granted to the federal government rested with the states or the people themselves. The Founders clearly wanted a limited federal government balanced by the state governments.
Prior to 1913, state legislatures appointed members to represent their state in the federal government, while the people directly elected members of the House of Representatives. The House represented the people and the Senate represented the states. This clever design balanced the will of the people and the sovereignty of the states, and the federal government was largely restrained from growing beyond its constitutional limits.
The federalist system was not understood by the people 100 years ago, and certainly isn't understood today. The Founders sought to craft a system ruled by law – the Constitution – and not a rule of man. That is why the United States is a constitutional republic and not a pure democracy. They knew that just government must have consent of the people, but that total democracy would inevitably lead to a tyranny of majority, which could strip state and individual liberty as easily as a monarch.
“The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of the States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities,” wrote Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, “To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end to itself.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theusreport.com ...
As much as I would like to see it happen, we can’t trust our current congress with the constitution.
Personally something I would like to see instead of an out right repeal would be to stop electing senators by popular vote. (Give them a certain number of votes per district)
Seems kind of funny that we can change how we vote for president within the states but we’re stuck with the current situation when it comes to senators.
There is a lot of support for going proportional in presidential races in Michigan.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2991194/posts
This is a double-edged sword. Not sure about this one.
I would HATE to have the New Jersey Legislature choose our Senators.
On the other hand, considering the blathering idiots (Corzine, Menendez, Lautenberg, “Dollar Bill” Bradley) the majority of New Jersey voters have sent to the Senate, maybe it would make no difference here but might improve the picture in sane places like Georgia.
I would donate my last dollar to this cause, if I thought it stood a snowball’s chance in hell of passing.
Does anyone with a brain think those 100 bastards in the Senate would allow it? Even 60 of them? 20? 10? 5? Maybe two.
The Seventeenth is a disaster for Original Intent. It emasculates the states legislatures and needs to go. Unfortunately it is probably with us forever.
The 17th was singularly the most damaging hit to the Constitution.
Progressives NEEDED to yank control away from the states. The Senate was established to put the brakes on the “rabble” in the house, where “mob rule” was known to prevail.
Repeal of the 17th should be the highest priority of all state legislatures.
Think this isn’t an important issue? The RATZ and other illegals and criminals will scream and holler and fight like demons with a lightning bolt up their butts. You think voter ID fight is big, wait till you see this one.
The Senate is supposed to represent the states, so I would like to see this pass.
Yeah I’m sure Harry Reid’s senate would be nothing but honest and forthright while rooting around in the constitution.
While were in there fixing up the USC can we get rid of the 16th amendment also?
I would say it is neck & neck with the 16th as to the most damaging. Hard call.
Interesting how the sky is the limit as far as the Left is concerned, but there seems to be nothing but defeatism when it comes to anything difficult for the Right. And they don’t even have the Constitution on their side!
Of course the repeal won’t move forward right away. The Seventeenth Amendment wasn’t introduced and ratified overnight, either. What has to happen is a national discussion on state sovereignty and the original intent of the Constitution. The only reason this amendment worked was because they did so under the veil of democracy (we are a republic, not a democracy) and the public knew little of federalism or the effect such an amendment would have on state sovereignty and individual liberty.
Bravo!
I'm as serious as a heart attack,folks.If Quebec can do it (they came close a few years back) and if Scotland can do it (they have a referendum coming up) we can do it.
Aye!
Things that are, are. I am not saying that we should not try. But it will be exceedingly difficult. We will have the MSM and the government working together against us the whole way.
We don’t need the Senate to agree with it. It can be done by Constitutional Convention, if 33 State Legislatures vote for it. The proposed amendment will be presented to all 50 states to vote on. Then, if 38 states approve it, goodbye 17th Amendment.
It is going to be difficult the progressives knew what they were doing when they passes the 16th and 17th amendments, they have the pure democracy now.
Constitution Convention???????
Can you even imagine what any Constitution that came from a modern constitution convention would look like?
By the time it was finished, this country would be ruled by a class of people that makes this bunch today look like small letter democrats. It would be much closer to Germany or Russia in 1939. Probably even worse.
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.