Posted on 10/20/2007 3:45:27 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
BTT
IIRC, all but three states have either ratified the Seventeenth Amendment or joined the Union after its ratification. The legislatures of all such states can be deemed to have consented to their loss of suffrage.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if the legislature of one of the three non-consenting states passed an act to appoint someone to the Senate for a full term without its citizens having voted for that person. IMHO, those states' legislators have the authority under the Constitution to do precisely that. If they do not have such authority, then they have no real suffrage in the Senate. Since they never consented to the loss of suffrage in that body, forcing it upon them would be unconstitutional.
Some might argue that giving all states no suffrage gives them "equal" suffrage. True, in a sense, zero does equal zero. On the other hand, I think it's pretty clear that an amendment that overtly abolished the Senate entirely would be deemed unconstitutional unless it was ratified unanimously (even though there, as here, all states would equally have no suffrage). I see no reason the Seventeenth should be any different.
The actual text of this guy’s proposed amendment is verbose, ungrammatical, and all-around amateurish. There’s lots of work to be done!
It isn’t the 14th Amendment that is to blame for the “anchor babies.” It’s those—Congress—who are determined to ignore the words in the amendment: “...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...” Those words were specifically explained by those who wrote the amendment in a way that rules out the notion of “anchor babies.”
I'm not sure, supercat. Wouldn't the legislators neglect to attempt that at the earliest opportunity amount to tacit consent, therefore not forced to accept the Amendment?
Sounds great to me. Perhaps it will rid us of media whore senators such as McCain and Schumer.
BTW, forget a Constitutional Convention. The last time that happened, the existing fundamental law - the Articles of Confederation - was scrapped completely. It could happen again.
I will admit, repealing the 17th would be of greater benefit if the Supreme Court hadn’t ruled that all legislative houses must have proportional representation. I suspect there would be more houses in the Republican camp if some were based on geographical representation, not proportional.
See #28. That Supreme Court ruling must be overturned.
Indeed, such an Amendment would need broad-based support, so that the Senators will face defeat in their elections, should they oppose repeal.
BTW, forget a Constitutional Convention. The last time that happened, the existing fundamental law - the Articles of Confederation - was scrapped completely. It could happen again.
I reluctantly agree. That last thing we need is the New Constitution of the People's Marxist Republik of Amerika.
>>Allow each state to send an ambassador to the federal government ...<<
While I like your general thinking, please do bear in mind that the German system isn’t quite as simple as each state sending “an” emissary. The actual formula by which it is determined how many emissaries each individual state is entitled to send is rather unfair. Add to that the fact that the geographic boundaries of the present-day German states (both in the East and the West) are rather arbitrary, and the unfairness becomes even more evident. (In contrast, U.S. states have much more identity and far longer traditions.) Lastly, most Germans, themselves, attribute much of the sluggishness of their parliamentary system to the inertia of the Bundesrat.
Let's look at the Senators who would not be in office if the 17th was repealed. Neither of the Senators from Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, Maine, one of the two from Tennessee, one of the two from Kentucky, David Vitter from Louisiana, either Coburn or Inhofe from Oklahoma. It's not just headcount. Losing senators from the South and Oklahoma would also tend to remove the more conservative ones.
I will also point out that the Democrats picked up several state legislatures in 2006. That doesn't bode well for your belief that the Democrat control would be temporary.
Well, we can knock out the liaison committee provision, for one thing. It is unnecessary; Senators have been forced to resign, pre-17th, when the Senators voted against the legislatures’ wishes.
The length of the term served is still six years, that would not change. And remember, just one of the consquences the 17th amendment was an almost complete lack of interest in state-wide elections only. Ever seen the vote tallies in state elections when a candidate for U.S. Senator or president wasn’t running? State elections would become much more important and smart candidates would run a platform on not letting as much of their state’s taxpayer money leave the state, allowing more local policies to prevail.
There may well be some short-term pain there but the long-term benfit would yield much better results for liberty, in my opinion.
Amen!
It will never happen because it’s too easy to demagogue against: “YOU mean, YOU want to take way the PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE their own Senators?!?”
Blow their mind and tell those same people that they do not choose their own president. When they ask you what in the hell you’re talking about, you can turn it into a civics lesson about the Electoral College, representative government, and the ninth and tenth amendments.
This has been a rallying cry of Jim Rob ever since I found Free Republic. Whenever I think of the 17th amendment (or 16th) I think “Jim Rob”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.