[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

PING!

[saganite]

I can’t even begin to conceive of the howls of outrage if this were to be seriously proposed. At a time when the Electoral College is under attack for not being “democratic” I don’t see how this could get any traction. Anywhere.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

I’ve been saying similar things to what Tony Blankley said in this article for years. The 16th and 17th amendment are two of the most egregious amendments there are. They both need to be repealed. He rightly points out that this erosion started in the Civil War.

Where I disagree with him is when he contends that the federal government does not have the duty to protect our civil or natural rights. These rights come from our creator and the federal government has two duties in regards to it. One is to enumerate them so that everyone knows their natural rights, hence the BOR. The other is to protect it’s citizens against the abuse of our natural rights. If the state will not do that (as in the case of the Southern States during reconstruction), then I believe it is the duty of the Federal government to step in and protect our natural rights. Some of the first gun control laws were those enacted as part of the “Black Codes” after the Civil war designed to keep blacks as quasi slaves.

[LibLieSlayer]

I am all for repealing the 17th... 52% of Americans have proved that they cannot vote the right way... at least the Governors can appoint men and women that WILL REPRESENT THEIR STATE... NOT SPECIAL INTERESTS!

LLS

[LibLieSlayer]

I am all for repealing the 17th... 52% of Americans have proved that they cannot vote the right way... at least the Governors can appoint men and women that WILL REPRESENT THEIR STATE... NOT SPECIAL INTERESTS!

LLS

[LibLieSlayer]

I am all for repealing the 17th... 52% of Americans have proved that they cannot vote the right way... at least the Governors can appoint men and women that WILL REPRESENT THEIR STATE... NOT SPECIAL INTERESTS!

LLS

[fieldmarshaldj]

Is Tony aware that if the 17th were repealed, you’d have nearly half the states (or more) in the country that would never elect a Republican Senator again because of permanent and obscenely Democrat majorities ? If the profoundly corrupt MA legislature elected Senators, Marcia (sic) Coakley would’ve beaten Scott Brown by a 90%-10% margin. Even in my state of TN, no Republican would’ve been elected to the Senate until this past year (since Reconstruction, 140 years).

[highlander_UW]

His argument that what bribery there is would be shifted to the local legislation misses what would really happen, which is, there would be bribery at BOTH the local and national levels. Although, if the repeal of the 17th amendment would allow the removal of a senator by the state he represents the added potential level of corruption would be more than mitigated by the increase in ability to rein in corrupt senators who are no longer representing the interests of the state. Additionally, he is correct that it's more likely that local bribes would be more likely rooted in state issues. Also, with another layer of potential bribery it would also potentially increase the costs of bribing a senator because one would have to not only bribe the senator but also be careful to watch how one does it so they wouldn't run afoul of the state's power structure.

[A.Hun]

Seems like a terrible idea....democrats control 27 state legislatures currently to 14 for Repubs. Eight are split.

It would give Dems permanent control of the Senate, and Scott Brown could never have happened.

[dead]

The whole point is that the Senators would be charged with representing their state's interests directly and the legislators would have to answer to the voters for their choice, should the senators fail in that mission.

It would weaken the party influence dramatically. For example, Schumer and Gillibrand in New York would have to vote down a horrendous health care bill that would bring horrific added costs to their state, rather than sucking it up and voting for it for the good of their party.

Direct election of Senators made them the party animals they currently are. Their mission and reason for existence, as described in the constitution, was destroyed. Now we have hacks instead of statesmen.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Just from reading some of the posts on here, I think we need to educate a lot of freepers on states rights and the 17th amendment.

[Ratman83]

The one thing that would change with the state leg picking the senators is this:

Any senator who made the state pay for a fed mandate would be in a world of hurt with the state leg. Any thing that must be paid at the local level will quickly cost someone politically.

[dixie sass]

hmmmm, reminds me of some discussions we had.

[mo]

The 17th amendment can be and should be repealed without a ConCon.....

[Repeal The 17th]

A constitutional amendment would be required to repeal the 17th.
The language of that amendment would need to include
the methodology which would replace the current system.

I would favor some kind of a system that encouraged the citizens of a state
to focus their efforts on issues within their own state.

Maybe something like providing authority for the governor’s
of the states to directly appointment U. S. Senators;
paired with them having full recall authority of their Senators.

[EternalVigilance]

From the America's Independent Party Platform :

Repeal of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments

We consider the federal income tax to be destructive of our liberty, privacy, and prosperity. Therefore, we are working to bring about its complete elimination and the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We recommend that the current system be replaced by an equitable, simple, noninvasive, visible, efficient tax, one that does not destroy or even infringe upon our economic privacy and liberty.

We also call for the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. Its enactment greatly reduced the power of our state legislatures and state governments – which are much closer to the people – and damaged our system of federalism.

 

[Monorprise]

I agree repeal the 17th amendment is the most critical thing we can do towards restoring our republic.

The function of the senate was to help the power interest of the States keep a check on the power the Federal government.

It was not simply to represent the people regionally, but rather a critical part of the checks and balances of our system.

Simply repealing it wont bring immediate changes, the Senate cant after all repeal laws or un-ratify treaty, or withdraw judges already made.

But it is a critical first step towards slowing the bleeding.

[TBP]

This would get liberals, progressives, populists, and others n a screaming fit, but it’s an effective way to protect the interests of the states.

Proof yet again that the Founders knew better.

[AmishDude]

What kind of Republicans do you think will be appointed from states with GOP legislatures?

Would they pick Crist or Rubio?