Repeal the 17th Amendment

Excellent commentary on the one portion of the Trinity of Evil passed in 1913. The other two are, of course, the income tax and the Federal Reserve.

Did you know that Estonia has a representative in Washington, but no states do?

The 17th Amendment is in its centennial year, having been ratified in 1913. The Amendment mandates the direct election of senators. Prior to its passage, Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution specified, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state chosen by the Legislature thereof…” The 17th Amendment replaces this language, stating, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state, elected by the people thereof…” In hindsight, the Amendment is a part of the Progressive agenda that has led to the growth of the federal government, and has been a significant factor in the transfer of power to the federal government from the states. It should be repealed.

For most of the nation’s history, until the passage of the 17th Amendment, senators were chosen by their state legislatures, which meant that the Senate represented the interests of the state governments. There is a solid rationale for this in a federal system of government. Legislation must be approved by both the House and the Senate, which meant, prior to the 17th Amendment, that legislation had to be approved by the representatives of the people, in the House, and the representatives of the state governments, in the Senate. This was a more substantial barrier to the passage of legislation than after the 17th Amendment, when both the House and the Senate represent the same constituencies.

By making it easier for Congress to pass legislation, the 17th Amendment increased the power of the federal government, which has been one factor (albeit, among many) that has led to the substantial growth of the federal government in the century since the Amendment was ratified.

The 17th Amendment has also taken power away from the states by removing representatives of the states from the Senate and replacing them by representatives who are popularly elected. This 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.

Consider Obamacare, for example, which imposes substantial costs on state governments. If the Senate still represented the interests of state governments, it probably would not have passed — at least, not in its current form. Consider legislation that withholds federal funds from states unless they comply with federal guidelines. The federal government threatened to withhold highway money from states unless they enacted a 55 mph speed limit in 1973. All states did, and that federal mandate was not repealed until 1995. Similarly, the federal government threatened to withhold highway money from states that did not raise their drinking age to 21. That passed in 1984 and remains in effect. If the Senate represented the state legislatures, it is unlikely that the federal government would be able to pass laws that constrained states, or imposed costs on them, as the federal government now does.

The 17th Amendment has facilitated the growth of the federal government, and has shifted power from the states to the federal government. We should repeal the 17th Amendment, as a step toward reversing these trends.

http://blog.independent.org/2013/02/...7th-amendment/

WAAAAHHHH WAAAHHHHH WAAAAAHHHHH

What if the Repugnantcans were in control of the Senate? You'd be HUMMING a different tune.

And don't hand us that "Im a Librarian" crap!

Sup, the only thing your HUMMING, is on someones skin flute.. lmfao

In theory Senators, who are currently elected directly by the populace, should also be representing their state interests.

Also, House Reps are essentially elected in the same way most state legislatures are.

I don't see making Senators subject to state legislatures changing that.

Also a point on the blog entry - if the writer wants less federal government, then why is he complaining about federal funds being withheld from States? If they don't want the money, they can just not do what the federal government is recommending (like what Perry recently is doing in Texas). It hurts the writer's argument when he wants a less federal government then turns around and complains about having to do things to get federal money. By taking federal money, you are implicitly approving of having a federal government.

WAAAAHHHH WAAAHHHHH WAAAAAHHHHH

What if the Repugnantcans were in control of the Senate? You'd be HUMMING a different tune.

And don't hand us that "Im a Librarian" crap! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I've been advocating repeal of the 17th Amendment since the 1970's. My tune hasn't changed regardless of who is in control. But facts are irrelevant to you, aren't they, Assup? That is why you were overwhelmingly voted . . .

DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR

ASSUP!!!

Thank you jbravo for pointing out the obvious flaws in Whiny's whiny ass post.

I couldn't believe that any state would elect a dipshit to the state legislature, or executive branch. Or would pass some crazy unconstitutional law. Or legislating morality or faith.

I dont understand how making states more powerful over our lives reduces government control over our lives.

The whole premise is bogus in a United States.

Frankly, I think Whiny was the pitcher in the 70s rather than the catcher he is today.

In theory Senators, who are currently elected directly by the populace, should also be representing their state interests.

Also, House Reps are essentially elected in the same way most state legislatures are.

I don't see making Senators subject to state legislatures changing that.

Also a point on the blog entry - if the writer wants less federal government, then why is he complaining about federal funds being withheld from States? If they don't want the money, they can just not do what the federal government is recommending (like what Perry recently is doing in Texas). It hurts the writer's argument when he wants a less federal government then turns around and complains about having to do things to get federal money. By taking federal money, you are implicitly approving of having a federal government. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Actually, there is a lot to be said for repealing it.

Senators used to be picked by the state legislatures, which were knowledgeable about state affairs. They selected US Senators that knew what the state wanted and what it didn't want.

Popularly elected Senators are elected by peopled that are generally ignorant of their own state affairs. US Senate elections end up being popularity contests for the most personable candidate, not the one who will look after state affairs. And the victorious Senator typically is only concerned with national matters, not state matters.

If the 17th Amendment was no in place, Hillary Clinton would NEVER have been the NY Senator. The NY legislature would have picked a state insider.

And the federal government would NEVER be able to pass laws that basically force the states to spend money to comply with federal demands. There would be no more strings attached to federal funding. Frequently, a state will be required to spend X dollars of its own budget to receive Y dollars of federal money. Typically X is much bigger than Y.

The federal government has a long history of passing unfunded mandates that require the states to spend money to comply with the federal law, but do not provide any federal funds. Read heree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfunded_mandate

Repeal the 17th and the federal government will pass far fewer unfunded mandates. THAT is how you get less federal government.

If the Senator did not protect the interests of his home state, the legislature would replace him the next time out.

Also, the electorate would pay more attention to state elections if they knew their Senators would be getting picked by the state legislature, not themselves.

In theory Senators, who are currently elected directly by the populace, should also be representing their state interests.

Also, House Reps are essentially elected in the same way most state legislatures are.

I don't see making Senators subject to state legislatures changing that.

Also a point on the blog entry - if the writer wants less federal government, then why is he complaining about federal funds being withheld from States? If they don't want the money, they can just not do what the federal government is recommending (like what Perry recently is doing in Texas). It hurts the writer's argument when he wants a less federal government then turns around and complains about having to do things to get federal money. By taking federal money, you are implicitly approving of having a federal government. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Actually, there is a reason why the Founders required Senators to be appointed by the legislature. It was to prevent the popular will from destroying the states. And his point about federal money was that if the Senate represented the states, Congress would likely never require such mandates in order to receive federal funds.

And in theory, they are to represent the states. However, the facts are they don't.

Yeah? Is that what the Flounders told you Brother Bluto?

World hasn't changed at all since then, has it?

Principles don't change, Assup.

DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR

ASSUP!!!

The founders, who are much smarter than most of the people here, wanted the House to represent the people, the president to represent the country, and the senate to represent the states. They considered each state to be country unto itself. They expected most of goverment to come from the house. They expected that the government would only meet a few months a year. I submitted a paper on this very topic about seven years ago and a follow up this last year. I also wrote about using the Internet for fund raising and campaigning in the mid 1990s. I got a C+ on that paper because the instructor thought it was too fanciful.

I would, as COG proposed, to repeal the 17th amendment.
I would make it so that all expenditures such as paychecks, office rental, and per diem would be the responsibility of the state and not the federal government.
I do think the time for term limits has come. Incumbentcy is too powerful of a weapon. There must be turnover.
I would prohibit elected officials from working as lobbyists for five years after leaving office.
I would also establish a federal standard for voter ID. Our elections must be secure.

Principles don't change Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

NEITHER DO YOUR DEPENDS, SQUEEZEDICK!

More FOUNDERS worship by the dumbest sheep in the flock.

Dipshits probably still using Windows 3

In theory Senators, who are currently elected directly by the populace, should also be representing their state interests.

Also, House Reps are essentially elected in the same way most state legislatures are.

I don't see making Senators subject to state legislatures changing that.
Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Repeal the 17th Amendment and enact term limits. Oz has become the haven for a permanent political aristocracy:

". . . Washington politicians "kick money back to family, friends, or people that hire them when they retire."

". . . Schweizer concurred. He claimed the permanent political class is bipartisan and those who are a part of this permanent aristocracy either marry or are born into it.

"Schweizer noted former Mississippi Senator Trent Lott, a Republican, and former Louisiana Senator John Breaux, a Democrat, partnering up to lobby after they left Congress. He cited Republican Rep. Bill Young of Florida whose daughter-in-law does defense lobbying while he sits on one of the most powerful subcommittees dealing with defense issues.

"Schweizer also pointed out that Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) has two sons who have also lobbied for projects in which their father was involved. . . ."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/25/Boomtown-Special-Assails-D-C-Permanent-Political-Class-for-Extracting-Wealth-from-Taxpayers