couldn’t agree more . .
PING!
Bookmarked.
I agree with him, but I don’t think Haskins explained his case in this article.
I agree and the US Senate, under this scenario, should have remained the electors of the President.
Nothing stops a State’s Senator from doing the budness of the State in DC.
Nothing stops a State’s Senator from doing the bidness of the State in DC.
The original presumption was based on wealth, but no one ever wants to say that. The Senate represented the wealthy, the House represented everyone else. But it wasn’t just snobbery - it was with a keen eye to financial realities. Truly wealthy men of the day were owners of financial resources on a scale that was affected, influenced and threatened by the stability or instability of the State itself. They were used to looking at situations from that perspective, and, it was assumed by the Founders, would be far more likely to seek to preserve its lawful stability and safety. In contrast, it was felt that non-wealthy people might be more inclined to undermine the State out of popular rage over some issue, or worse yet, br organized by an Executive Branch despot towards the same ends.
I’m not sure the model stand today, though. Truly wealthy people have gone global and give not a damn about the States. They’re more concerned with getting rid of the entire country, through treaties that they lobby for wrongful enforcement above the powrrs of the Constitution itself.
Megyn Kelly has gone into 17-Land ?
and she has lookAlike desktop strippers to download?
Unfortunately neither party wants that power returned to the states. They seem to see the senate as their check on the power of the house (our direct representatives)
The last 2 GOP senate candidates in Michigan spoke about state control of senators and were immediately tossed overboard by the party. Terri Land was especially vocal about returning the power of infrastructure to the states.
There is growing resistance to DC from the states even without the senate. For instance, Rick Snyder got the deal for Canada to build a new bridge over the Detroit river but Obama refuses to approve or fund the customs plaza on this side (federal infrastructure) unless Rick Snyder gives $100 million to unrelated Detroit pension funds. Snyder started the project without federal approval because Obama will be gone by the time the project is done.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
With respect to Congress’s limited power to lay taxes, it can be argued that one of the Senate’s original jobs was to kill appropriations bills from the House of Representatives which the House couldn’t justify under Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers. After all, such appropriations bills arguably robbed state revenues. And since the Senate was controlled by state lawmakers, federal senators would kill such bills on behalf of the state lawmakers who elected them to office.
As another consequence of 17A, we’re also seeing a corrupt president wrongly exercising powers that the Oval Office doesn’t have. This is because the likewise corrupt Senate has actually been protecting this president from the consequences of a well-deserved impeachment by the House.
Also consider that the Senate has been helping corrupt Congress to grab land from the states outside the framework of the Constitution, particularly Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I. If the Senate was still controlled by state lawmakers, I don’t think that Congress would be stealing land from the states.
Finally, since there has never been an Article V 3/4 state majority which supported constitutionally indefensible Obamacare Democratcare, the Senate was wrong to support the House with respect to passing Democratcare. Democratcare would have probably never gotten by the Senate if state lawmakers still controlled the Senate.
If elected to high office this would be at the top of my list... 17A screws up the Republic more than the average schmuck on the street will ever be able to understand.
If the 17th Amendment had never been enacted then Democrats would have been more desperate to keep control of state legislatures and governorships. They would use similar arguments that Republicans use when they field lousy candidates: we need a Republican in office to make sure the Supreme Court stays conservative. Only they would be saying we need a Democrat in office to make sure our Senator is also a Democrat.
And do the states really want to be protected from the Feds? Some governors like to rattle their sabers, but would they really want to pay for all the stuff they are currently getting "for free" from the Feds? Would they really want to completely fund the building and maintenance of roads, bridges, and dams? Would they really want to fund a state militia rather than depending on the National Guard? Would they really want to takeover all of the National Parks?
When governors start sending federal money back to Washington then we can start getting worked up over the 17th Amendment. Utah is now making a stand to see if they can retake lands taken by the feds. I don't imagine that will go anywhere, but if it does then trying to rescind the 17th Amendment might make some sense.
Ping to read tomorrow.
Agreed.
BTW, under the old system (pre-17th Amendment), there would probably be even more GOP Senators.
And combined with that, and even worse, was the creation of the Federal Reserve.
Progressive government then had control over the money supply and interest rates. No expensive social-engineering scheme need ever go wanting.
Might as well disolve the senate and add two more house seats for each state....
Also the 17th has led to an apathy in the population about picking people for the state houses...
It was another ploy of centralization by the (p) regressives.
Right. Just as liberals in Congress are concerned about preventing expansion of judicial and presidential power that infringes on that of Congress.
Oh, wait...
Sorry, but inflation, growth in population and in size of the economy all make this statement meaningless.
A more rational comparison is of debt to gdp. Which is bad enough.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/the-long-story-of-us-debt-from-1790-to-2011-in-1-little-chart/265185/