The 17th Amendment and Consent of the Governed

[SeeSharp]

When I said it was a red-herring argument,...

Oh I am making a purely academic argument. The constitution is ignored in so many other ways there isn't the slightest chance of the 17th being ruled unconstitutional because of something like this.

So what do we do now?

Pursue its repeal. That's all we can do. I really don't hold out much hope though.

[Political Junkie Too]

Well, thanks for the debate. You exposed me to a new point of view.

Still not sure that I fully agree; the state lost its ability to select the Senator of its own chosing, but the state still sends two Senators. To me, it hinges on the expectation of the "faithless Senator," not the selection method of the Senator.

I agree that there is more pressure to be faithful when you have to appeal to the more knowledgeable legislators in the state, but that is no guarantee. That's why I'm not fully bought into the loss of suffrage argument, since the expectation of total fidelity should never have been there in either case.

-PJ

[PGalt]

Thanks for the post/chart. Interesting.

[Q-ManRN]

Great article Jacquerie! Thank you for including me and please keep me on your ping list. Keep up the good work. I do hope that we can successfully repeal both the 16th & 17th amendments.

[Jacquerie]

There is little need to speculate how state appointed senators would or would not go rogue. Just look at our history. In the aggregate, the pre-17th federal government, even after the 14th amendment, respected state sovereignty. In post-17th America, government consolidated in one city, and the eventual decline of the states into little more than petty provinces was guaranteed.