Utah Senate Votes to Repeal 17th Amendment

Townhall ^ | 2/25/2016 | Christine Rousselle

[Fhios]

In a bit of unusual news, the Utah Senate voted 20-6 to ask Congress to repeal the 17th Amendment of the Constitution. The 17th Amendment allows for the direct election of senators. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Al Jackson (R-Highland) argued that the 17th Amendment was not what the founders of the country had intended and changed the meaning of the role of the senators.

[Lurker]

So have I. The 17th is an abomination.

L

[patlin]

The 16th Amendment gave Congress NO NEW power to tax. The 16th Amendment income tax is an excise tax, limited to enumerated areas in Article I that the states gave Congress authority over. Therefore, if you are paying tax in earnings that are not associated with A1 excise activities, then it is you who are at fault for not informing yourself of the truth of the 16th Amendment.

[vmivol00]

Irrelevant. Senators reporting state Govt would be less likely to put their state in bad financial positions. If they did, they could be recalled at will by the legislature.

It also take a ton of the money and vote buying out of the process.

[TBP]

Excellent! Howe many more do we need?

[C210N]

And how can we be sure who will be sent as delegates from “conservative” states?

So, are you proposing that FR vet the delegates?

With the elected representatives (typically 2 year terms) of the states choosing delegates, the choosers are relatively close to "the people". I'd rather have these representatives choosing delegates to make amendments, as opposed to Congresscritters making amendments. Either way, the ratification hurdle is the same.

On the 17th itself, it breaks the checks and balances of the republic. With the 3 branches being the Federal, the States, and the People, the 17th steals the State power and hands it to the People, thus obliterating one whole strap of the "checks and balances". We're in uncharted waters today... and surely "The People" need to be checked and balanced as any other entity.

[patlin]

So you want to take away Congress A1 authority to raise funds for the constitutional duties the states entrusted to them? See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3401749/posts?page=42#42

[TBP]

Before the 17th Amendment, the Constitution provided that Senators would be elected by state legislatures. That was so that they would represent the interests of their states.

Given the results of 2010 and 2014, there might be even more Republican senators today under that system.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Nope. Crooked politicians electing crooked politicians is an abomination.

[fieldmarshaldj]

And not a one of those “Republicans” would be a Conservative.

[DoodleDawg]

If not for the Seventeenth Amendment Bob Bennett would still be the junior senator from Utah and not Mike Lee.

[TBP]

One or two, perhaps.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Good! Put that on the list for an Article V Convention of States.

[txnativegop]

You have more faith in your elected officials than I have in mine, I suppose.

I merely suggest that calling a con-con is an extremely dangerous thing to do and something that will have unforeseen consequences (which are usually bad).

These are dangerous times.

Have a good day! FRiend.

[fieldmarshaldj]

None. No Cruz, no Lee, no Sessions. Nada. Lots of Mimsy Grahams and other assorted leftist big gubmint asshats.

[Lurker]

Google up The Federalist Papers and learn why things were set up that way. I seriously doubt you’re smarter than Jefferson, Adams, and Madison.

L

[C210N]

Why refer to a Convention-to-Propose-Amendments-For-Ratification-in-the-Usual-Manner as a "con-con"? My idea of a so-called "con-con" is where the Constitution is ripped up and replaced whole cloth. The COS Convention of States is nothing like that. What we have going on for the past 100 years AND right now IS ESSENTIALLY a "con-con" to use your term. All the more reason for using a tool the Founders provided for the purpose they feared, and which has transgressed - a run-away Feral (ie, National) government. It sorely needs additional limits to be put in place, and "The People" is the only body with standing to do so, via a COS.

[ReaganGeneration2]

GOP fully owns 31 chambers, Democrats 11. If the remaining 8 split ones are somehow divided evenly, that makes 70 GOP senators, 30 Dems.

But if McConnell’s still there, Obama still gets his agenda passed.

[C210N]

You have more faith in your elected officials than I have in mine, I suppose.

For the record, I'm from MA, and have zero faith in my elected officials. Nevertheless, I have great faith in the states as a whole sitting at a COS, especially given that a solid majority of them are of a better persuasion than mine.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Vote buying was worse under the old system. Indeed vote buying was a major factor leading to the 17th amendment. Go back and study the corruption of legislatures in the late 19th and early 20th. People hear something that sounds good then incorporate it into their political statements superficial analysis if you please.

The real problem underlying Democracy is financial corruption. Corruption raised its ugly head even in the Revolutionary war. A General, whose name I can't recall was profiteering in supplies, in the Civil War Grant faced people profiteering in giving the South gold in return for cotton.

Don't be an idiot times have changed and one cannot go back. You would insure Democratic control of the Senate for all time.

Think it through.

[beelzepug]

So what? They still have just two votes. My state (WA) has had Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell in the Senate for years. Right now, we have a Republican state senate. We might be able to change our senators if the 17th was repealed but because three counties wag the dog in WA, it probably isn’t going to change in my lifetime. Murray is, without question, one of the dumbest people in the senate.