Skip to comments.Law Professor: 17th Amendment 'Disenfranchised States'
Posted on 12/06/2016 2:31:55 PM PST by george76
The 17th Amendment, which allowed the popular election of U.S. senators, disenfranchised state legislatures and altered the U.S. Constitution's checks and balances, Chapman University Law Professor John Eastman told an audience of state legislators in Washington, D.C. last week.
The amendment made it easier for Congress to pass legislation, which eventually led to the massive growth in federal power that the states are still grappling with today...
What the founders did is come up with this counterintuitive notion that adding an extra layer of government would provide less government and greater liberty. And it only worked if those governments were in competition with and in conflict with each other,
That all went away when we disenfranchised .. the states from a role in the federal government by removing their ability to choose the senators, ..
Before the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, each state legislature chose the states two U.S. senators while House members were elected by popular vote. This meant that the interests of the state would also be represented at the federal level.
the 17th Amendment has drastically altered the system of checks and balances that the founders carefully designed.
The 17th Amendment has been a significant factor in turning what originally was a federation of state governments into a national system, where the federal government sits firmly on top of the states
Who are senators dependent on today? The media. The donors. The special interests. Right? Theyre dependent on everybody but the states whom they were originally intended to represent here in the nations capital
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Completely agree - need to repeal the 17th.
That plus the 19th screwed us forever.
Living in MA I’m going to have to think about this a bit more.
Link seems to be broken - Article here:
States can't be trusted to take care of minorities. Only the federal government cares about them.
After all, look how much better off they are now than they were when the Civil Rights Act was passed.
Yes, but the people got tired of their legislatures being wholly subsidiaries of railroads, oil companies, or Cotton Inc.
He’s exactly right.
But over time, I have come to believe that we would likely end up with many of the same problems, and the same Senators regardless of whether they were chosen by the legislatures or the voters.
Our real, underlying problem is the grip of the political parties. Though Trump's victory is a major win against party power, and may lead to some changes.
Add the 16th.
Glad this guy finally figured it out. Now if the rest of academia could figure it out...
>>Add the 16th.<<
It’s the 16th that needs to go.
There is not a system of government that is incorruptible. Some are more corruptible than others, but they are all prone to it. Politicians have power. Power corrupts. Our only real check and balance lies within the people.
I really hope Trump is the beginning of a new era in America. An era when corrupt, bought-and-paid-for politicians no longer have chokeholds on their districts and the people hold their representatives responsible. An era when people expect the government to actually run the country in the most effective way possible, sticking with programs that work and eliminating those that don't, when people stop using ideology as a guideline for voting.
Correct. 17th Amendment should be repealed. ALL of the “Progressive Era” (1900-1920) amendments should be repealed. So far only #18 is gone.
100% correct it disenfranchises states.
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.