[betty boop]

Back in 1800, the states would not have needed Congress to call for a single-subject CoS; they would simply have instructed their Senators to introduce a bill in Congress to propose the amendment. The other states would then have supported the bill or not.

Ah! But there's the "rub": The original constitutional "architecture" that recognized such powers of the Senate was utterly destroyed by the Seventeenth Amendment. THAT order is completely gone, owing to a frenzy of populist reaction to the public corruption of the times.

These "progressive" populists evidently thought that a one-man-one-vote per citizen regime on any and all public questions was superior to the Constitution's plan, which called for institutions designed to mediate the effects of transitory public faction and frenzy. Such as the Senate — designed not to represent the people directly, but the several States, the ratifying parties of the Constitution.

The Seventeenth Amendment took a wrecking ball to the very foundation of the Constitutional vertical separation of powers as between the national government and the several sovereign States, by denying the States representation in Congress.

I think the Seventeenth is due for repeal. We have all seen its pernicious effects....

[Repeal The 17th]

“...I think the Seventeenth is due for repeal...”
-
Amen.

[trisham]

The Seventeenth Amendment took a wrecking ball to the very foundation of the Constitutional vertical separation of powers as between the national government and the several sovereign States, by denying the States representation in Congress.

I think the Seventeenth is due for repeal. We have all seen its pernicious effects....

***************************

Excellent post, betty boop. It seems that even back in the day William Randolph Hearst was using his newspapers to influence politics, and this was one of his interests.

[Political Junkie Too]

The Senate still retains its powers, it's just the controlling link to the state legislatures that is broken. That's why Senators no longer fear losing their seats and are free to go against the interests of their constituents.

That's why I say that the idea that Congress can thwart a convention of states by holding some sort of implied "same-subject" requirement over the states is just another surrender of power - this time it's the states' power to compel a proposing convention.

The 17th amendment changed the nature of Congress, but it didn't change the plain language of Article V, calling a Convention for proposing Amendments - plural.

Demanding a same-subject requirement just hands Congress a weapon to use against the states to prevent them from organizing, when no such requirement seems to exist in the Constitution or in the Federalist Papers writings.

-PJ