[El Gato]

Anybody want to have a go at explaining how the state legislatures were convinced to pass the 17th amendment in the first place. What were the rationals given by the amendments supporters at the time? Just pointing to a URL would be sufficient of course.

It's one of those things I never have understood. Oh I could see the mob being convinced it was a great idea, but how to convince the state legislators, and for that matter the sitting Senators, who after all were beholding to those legislatures?

[Virginia-American]

Agreed. I believe our host, Mr. Robinson, does too.

[Nateman]

Repeal the income tax too. Since they now can control 100% of our output if they desire they got plenty of power for sale. Limit the money the fed gets and they will have less to sale , therefore the amount of corruption goes down too,

[Political Junkie Too]

Of course, rereading this, it becomes apparent that it only takes 10 years to turn over the Senate, not 18.

-PJ

[gortklattu]

I have been advocating the repeal of the 17th Amendment for years now, and was delighted to see this posting.

The 17th's sales pitch was to stop the railroads from "buying" too much influence in congress. It is basically the same pitch that is being used in today's campaign finance reform.

History does repeat itself.

IMPORTANT POINT: When the 17th Amendment was ratified the 10th Amendment lost its guardians.

Today's trend is to bigger and bigger government. Pushing an amendment for the repeal of the 17 Amendment is worth the risk, because it is necessary!

[Dick Bachert]

Here's ANOTHER possibility:

[nsmart]

This would be great.. and also up the number of Representatives in the House, too. Too many in the population to get any input with your Representative.

[nsmart]

Lets stop taxing corporations, too. The only voice they have to effect these taxes is by using money. They can't vote, after all.

[Political Junkie Too]

I just noticed that Sobran mentioned this in an article published on March 23, 2002.

In a column titled "How Might Makes Right [lewrockwell.com] ," Mr. Sobran writes:

The Constitution sounds great on paper. But how is the Federal Government to be prevented from exceeding its allotted powers? Originally there were three safeguards...

Second, the Senate of the United States represented the states, and would oppose any usurpation of the rights reserved to the states and denied to the Federal Government. But the Seventeenth Amendment virtually abolished the Senate by requiring the popular election of senators, ending their selection by the state legislatures. By being democratized, the Senate became a redundant institution, with no special constitutional function.

-PJ

[dead]

Bump. Thanks for the ping from that other thread

Another point in selling the idea would be that the constitution is not specific on the manner in which the State Legislature selects their Senators. Those states that still desired the popular election of their senators would be free to set up the process within their legislature as a sort of statewide electoral college. In this way, they would still be free to elect theirs by popular vote.

This variation in election methods would be entirely constitutional, while allowing the people to judge the effectiveness of the different methods in each state. This would be in line with "the crucibles of democracy" concept envisioned by the founding fathers.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

PING!