The Seventeenth Amendment: Should It Be Repealed?

FindLaw ^ | Friday, September 13, 2002 | By JOHN W. DEAN

[Looking for Diogenes]

I could make a very strong argument that such a law would be a violation of the first amendment. And what of the "idle billionaire" like the Rat from Jersey who is perfectly willing to spend $80 million of his own money to buy a Senate seat?

How would your plan deal with the millionaire politicians who make 'loans' to their campaigns, then hold fund raisers after they get elected, the funds going into their own pockets to repay the loans?

Yes, the Supreme Court has decided that money equals speech. An amendment could override that decision. A strict limit on money raised, combined with free TV advertising, would take most of the money out of politics.

[Ditto]

Yes, the Supreme Court has decided that money equals speech. An amendment could override that decision. A strict limit on money raised, combined with free TV advertising, would take most of the money out of politics.

I don't see money in politics as being as dangerous as limiting free speech or compelling private citizens to freely give their product away to politicians.

Like I said earlier, money is the force in politics. You can't deny it and if freely given with no strings attached, money is not a problem. In fact, it is a positive --- i.e. people getting involved by putting their money where their mouth is. I would like to see the system changed to encourage millions of smaller contributions to off-set the power that a handful of wealthy donors now have, all with strings attached. That is why I propose a straight tax credit for small contributions.

[Melas]

Anyone want to guess how large the democrat majority would be in the senate without the 17th Amendment?

Hint, Democrats control 18 legislatures, and the Republicans 17. However, Democrats control the state senate in 9 of the 14 states where control is split. Oddball Nebraska is anyone's guess how to count.

Now call me silly, but I don't like those odds.

[BikerNYC]

No, it shouldn't be repealed. At least with it in place, 1/3 of the federal government is directly elected by the people. If it were repealed, only 1/6 of the federal government would be directly elected by the people.

[billbears]

Please see above

[Howlin]

Please tell me you are not advocating anything that this CRIMINAL says.

[billbears]

One issue the 17th Amendment 'helped' was to take the the last vestiges of power out of the hands of the states and put it into the hands of the 'electorate', where in fact the power was completely diluted and strengthened even further the centralized power in Washington. As a Southerner, I see this as the FIRST move to return to the great Republic this nation once was and away from the Socialist Democracy Hamiltonians have turned it into. Dean was not the first to bring this up. Do you honestly believe that the system was broken for the preceding 130 or so years before the 17th Amendment was enacted? That the Founders did not have the best interests in mind of the Republic and the citizens of their respectives states?

[Redcloak]

Yes, the 17th should go. It has produced some dreadful Senators. Take California as an example. In 1992, Boxer and Feinstein were elected. (Boxer was in a special election.) There's no way that these two loons would have been sent to Washington had the Legislature and the Governor been tasked with picking Senators. The Governor then was Pete Wilson. Yes, we'd have still gotten a pair of Democrats, but not these monstrosities!

[Looking for Diogenes]

There's no way that these two loons would have been sent to Washington had the Legislature and the Governor been tasked with picking Senators.

Governors only get involved when there is a midterm vacancy. Before the 17th Amenfdment, it was the state legilatures that chose senators. The governors had nothing to do with it (except whatever influence they could exert).

[Looking for Diogenes]

We may quibble about the details, but I certainly agree with you on the general course.

[JoeSixPack1]

Erasing the 16th is step one. After the dust settled the 17th would be do-able.

[H.Akston]

You're so right. Merry Christmas.