How to Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments

American Thinker ^ | July 7, 2013 | Theodore Koehl

[neverdem]

Americans may be able to regain control over their federal government by moving their respective individual state legislatures to invalidate the 16th and 17th Amendments to the United States Constitution. Essentially, this is a vote to reverse ratification of an Amendment without a Constitutional Convention.

Repeal of the 16th Amendment starves the federal beast by depriving it of its consumption of money from the states and the taxpayers through income. States could exercise better control over how or even if their money is spent.

Repeal of the 17th Amendment makes United States senators directly appointed by the state legislatures, as they were at our nation's founding, and representative of the will of each state and its citizens. This action would check the federal government's proclivity to pass laws binding the states to unfunded mandates. It would increase the sovereignty of the several states and restore true federalism back into our system of government.

The states can do this by individual vote; this way, a Constitutional Convention and the subsequent dangers presents to liberty can be avoided. Three-fourths of the state legislatures would have to vote to repeal each or any Amendment. Once each state votes to invalidate an Amendment, the vote is sent to the Archivist of the National Archives. The result would be a return to the Constitution as it existed before the now repealed Amendments were included.

The United States of America was founded as a representative republic, where several sovereign states voluntarily joined under a common federal sovereign to better guarantee the unalienable rights of "We the People." This federal government was to be strictly limited to the enumerated powers given to it under the Constitution of the United States by the sovereignty of the several states and the people, who themselves are sovereign individuals...

[neverdem]

In the early years of the Republic, this system of indirect election of senators seemed to work well. After several decades, however, growing partisanship in some state legislatures resulted in contentious deadlocks that left vacant Senate seats. The impetus for reform began as early as 1826, when direct election of senators was first proposed, but it was not until the latter half of the 19th century that the system of indirect election began to break down. Intimidation and corruption marked some of the states' selection of senators. The Senate considered nine bribery cases between 1866 and 1906. In addition, 45 deadlocks occurred in 20 states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating senators. Despite the passage of a federal law in 1866 to regulate the election methods of the state legislatures, deadlocks and vacancies continued. In 1899 problems in electing a senator in Delaware became so acute that the state legislature did not send a senator to Washington for four years.

I just came across 1826 on C-Span. How did they deal with split legislatures?

[rurgan]

We should do that: get our state legislatures to invalidate the 16th and 17th.

[neverdem]

Maybe you came across this. How did they deal with split legislatures prior to the 17th?

[Repeal The 17th]

ping a ling a ling

[central_va]

As much trouble as the original senate selection process was, what we have now is infinitely worse.

[dontreadthis]

Levin Liberty Project?

[Proud2BeRight]

What’s the difference? Article after article and Amendment after Amendment of the US Constitution is being used as toilet paper by Obama and the statists now anyway that it doesn’t matter.

[cripplecreek]

At this point I think we’d be better off even if split legislatures were to pick one from both parties.

However, selling the idea of taking people’s vote for senator away is an incredibly high hurdle. Last summer Pete Hoekstra made the comment that he would like to get rid of the 17th amendment and the democrats went rabid screeching about him wanting to TAKE YOUR VOTE AWAY!!!!

You might be able to convince people to vote for senators by congressional district and the one who takes the most districts wins. You might actually be able to sell that if you can show how it puts control back into the hands of the individual states.

[0.E.O]

A unique consideration would cause the legislatures of the several states to vote to de-ratify or nullify the 16th and then 17th Amendments. This should be accomplished with little danger to the republic in that once three fourths of the several states (38) vote to de-ratify an amendment, the Constitution would return to its former status as to law.

There is no provision in the Constitution to de-ratify an amendment. A vote for ratification is a vote for ratification. No do-overs.

[Dilbert San Diego]

Is this proposal legal?

We all know that the 18the amendment, Prohibition, was repealed by passing the 21st amendment. But the states didn’t just nullify their ratification of the 18the amendment. Congress ratified the 21st amendment, then sent it to be ratified by the States.

So I’m wondering if repeal amendments would have to be approved by Congress before the states could get to vote on these issues?

[NonValueAdded]

But an Amendment CAN repeal a prior Amendment, viz. the 21st Amendment:

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

[neverdem]

You might be able to convince people to vote for senators by congressional district and the one who takes the most districts wins.

Thanks for the comment, but rats aren't that stupid. They're too concentrated in big cities.

[JCBreckenridge]

O.E.0 has a burr about ‘nullification’. Yes, it’s possible as the 21st showed.

[0.E.O]

But an Amendment CAN repeal a prior Amendment, viz. the 21st Amendment:

That's the only way an amendment can be un-done.

[bigheadfred]

the scotus has been compromised and decisions like nullification should be wrested from them it is we the people who must determine our fate not a coven of black robed witches

[SunkenCiv]

Repeal Obamacare.

Remove Holder.

Special Prosecutors for Gunwalker, Eavesdropping programs, and Benghazi.

Thanks neverdem.

the 16th Amendment
Constitution of the United States, via FindLaw et al | ratified on February 3, 1913 | The Framers et al
Posted on 06/05/2009 10:59:47 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2265664/posts

the 17th Amendment
Constitution of the United States, via FindLaw et al | ratified by the states April 8, 1913 | The Framers et al
Posted on 06/11/2009 5:33:16 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2270026/posts

[traditional1]

Can't happen. Each State is so profusely corrupted by Voter Fraud (Dem's), no Voter ID (Dem's), and parsitic tribal units in EVERY Major City, that a vote of the People will be NOT to change ANYTHING, for fear the Wealth Redistribution might be adversely impacted for the chosen voting bloc.

When Amnesty is passed, it's over.

[Hostage]

It’s true that once a right is given to a voter, it is near impossible to take it back. The right to vote is a positive right. The right for the federal government to define ‘income’ however they wish and take it from the citizenry is a negative right.

However, we can amend the Constitution to allow state legislatures to recall their wayward US Senators thereby holding them to account to state interests. And I doubt recalls would occur often because just the threat of a recall should be enough for a Senator to get the message.

Between a risk of being primaried by voters or recalled by state legislatures, US Senators should be expected to act more responsibly to their states and constituencies.

[0.E.O]

the scotus has been compromised and decisions like nullification should be wrested from them it is we the people who must determine our fate not a coven of black robed witches

What if a state decided to nullify the Supreme Court's D.C. v. Heller decision?

[cripplecreek]

I’m up for anything that puts senators back under the control of the states. However that still leaves me with Detroit, Ann Arbor, and Flint choosing my senators despite the GOP 3 branch majority here.