Posted on 05/20/2016 8:04:53 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Utah lawmakers recently approved a resolution calling on Congress to ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.
Ratified in 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution established direct election of U.S. senators by popular vote. Before the amendment’s ratification, senators were elected by state legislatures.
The resolution, approved by the House of Representatives and sent to the state’s lieutenant governor for filing in March, was sponsored by state Sen. Alvin Jackson (R-Highland).
‘A Formal Check’
Todd Zywicki, a professor of law at George Mason University, says the Seventeenth Amendment removed a necessary safeguard against lobbyists and government’s own nature.
“The framers understood that, in order for the states to be protected from federal government overreach it was necessary to give the states a formal check,” Zywicki said. “That check was by allowing the states in their corporate political capacity, the state legislatures, to choose senators.
“The second aspect was that the Senate was to be a check on special-interest activity,” Zywicki said. “By having the Senate chosen by a different constituency than the House, that was designed to raise the level of consensus to enact legislation, making it more difficult for special interests to capture the government.”
Zywicki says repealing the Seventeenth Amendment is unlikely to happen, though.
“First, the tide of democracy is very strong and hard to stop, much less roll back.” Zywicki said. “Second, it would require a degree of understanding of the importance of constitutional structure that virtually none of the public or elected officials today could or would be willing to understand.”
Worth The Effort?
Ilya Somin, who is also a professor of law at George Mason University, says he disagrees with Zywicki.
“I am not opposed to repeal on principle, but I don't think it’s worth the vast investment of political capital it would take, if it can be done at all,” Somin said. “Our efforts would be far better expended elsewhere.”
Overwhelming Odds
Somin says convincing people to support repealing the amendment is too difficult to be worth the effort and expense.
“The odds against almost any constitutional amendment are stacked, in the modern environment where the political system is highly polarized, and assembling an overwhelming supermajority, are very, very high,” Somin said. “In this case, you also have to overcome the widespread perception that repealing the amendment would be undemocratic.”
Somin says American partisan politics also prevents a successful repeal effort.
“The passage of any amendment requires bipartisan support. Repeal of the 17th Amendment, so far, has attracted support almost exclusively among Republicans, and not even a strong majority of them. Unless and until it gets substantial Democratic support, as well, it has no chance of success.”
Well, the people do elect the state's legislature, so indirectly, the elect the senate under the pre 17th rules.
More important, how would this improve the senates moral compass? Mark Twain thought they were crooks before the 17th A. How would the change in electing the senate isolate them from corruption? I don't see a difference.
That says that the very first thing we need to do is rescind the 17'th amendment and return the election of US senators to the state houses.
“Senate positions were originally created to represent the individual States.”
I thought each state was created as a Republic, and that the United States was a group of Republics.
That just may be the understatement of the century...
Interesting he included "elected officials" in his statement...!
We have basically become a type of oligarchy where elected officials are bought and sold like chess pieces by the power brokers...
Just imagine if elected officials took their constitutional duties seriously ...
Leavenworth would be filled up...
Good!
Seems like the 17th was/is in direct conflict with the 10th. How do the Feds get off telling the States how to decide who the State reps in the Senate will be? If a State wants to hold a lottery for the positions, more power to them.
As an example, I live in Illinois, we recently had a governor impeached and thrown in the slammer for attempting to sell 0's senate seat after his Ascension to the presidency.
I'd like to think chitcanning the 17th would help but I think that action might cause bunch of new problems.
I really believe that no "meaningful" change can occur in our political structure until very restrictive term limits can be implemented.
I simply believe that our elected officials, and the way that they are allowed to betray the electorate, cannot be trusted to represent the people who elected them.
Career politicians are the problem. Our government was designed to be populated by ordinary citizens "taking a turn". Elective government service was supposed to be a civic responsibility, not a lifetime license to steal.
There is no way someone opposed to the repeal of the 17th amendment should be posting their opinions -ever- on a web site called “Free Republic”.
A step in the right direction.
However, if you think that that sort of thing is limited to Illinois, you're just not paying attention.
...I thought each state was created as a Republic, and that the United States was a group of Republics...
Only two states were Republics. California for a few days in 1846, and the Republic of Texas from 1836 to 1845. Texas even had several Presidents, including Sam Houston and Anson Jones.
The Constitution and the Bill of rights only refers to States and “the people. “ States are referred to numerous times in the Bill of Rights.
YES!
Put the States back in the United States
I live in Illinois, too. I’m willing to rely on the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in this case. Allowing the direct election of Senators was a horrible mistake even considering the risks inherent with that.
L
Based on the excerpt below, I think that Trump and other rich people would start playing a different tune about federal funding for the states if they understood that a chunk of the federal taxes that they have been paying for years are probably unconstitutional imo.
“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.
Trump needs to understand that the individual states could afford to run their own social spending programs without federal government interference if voters were to wake up and put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes.
Exactly. The States should collect what taxes they need to take care of their own business. The federal doesn’t have any business redistributing it and holding it as ransom.
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.