Restoring Federalism: Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment
by Alan SnyderThe “Restoring Honor” event at the Lincoln Memorial was inspiring. That should be just the beginning of a “Restoration Movement.” We don’t really need a revolution in America; all we need to do is restore what once was. I have a suggestion for another aspect of our Founding that needs to be restored—a suggestion that some will call unrealistic, yet one that the Founders considered essential.
Let’s restore the provision in the original wording of the Constitution that allows state legislatures to choose a state’s senators who serve in Congress.
Article I, Section 3 says, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof.”
The reasoning was lucid: the people of each state already had direct representation into the national government via the House of Representatives; it was necessary as well to provide representation for the state governments in the national Congress. The goal was to make sure that laws passed by each state were not going to be overturned by the national government without good reason.
It was one of those key checks on power; it was to provide balance in the federal system.
Why did this change?
By the early twentieth century, the progressive movement was gaining ascendancy. One of the primary tenets of the movement was to add an amendment to the Constitution allowing the people of each state to elect senators directly, just as they already did for representatives.
The argument was pretty much the following: there is too much corruption in the Senate, and the only way to ensure good government is to give the people at large the vote for senators. That will end the “evil” of state legislatures sending their favorites to Congress.
This reasoning was based on the belief that state governments usually legislated against the well-being of the people and assumed that if the people, not the state legislatures, chose the senators, they would no longer be corrupt.
Consequently, in 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment was added to the Constitution, shifting the choice of senators from the state legislatures to the people of the states. Now that the people choose their senators, corruption has vanished from the halls of the Senate.
Is there really anyone who believes that fantasy?
If state legislatures are corrupt, the people can change them. The maxim holds: in a representative system, the government is a reflection of the people who voted them into power. If corruption exists, the people allowed it. If the people awaken to the corruption, it will be much easier to root it out at the state level than at the national because the state government is closer to the people, and their voice can be more clearly heard.
Denying the state legislatures the choice of senators has effectively eliminated state government influence on national legislation. The senators don’t have to answer to their state governments anymore; they are elected or re-elected by the people directly. As a result, they don’t care about the interests of the state governments. They only have to pay attention if the people get aroused on an issue.
This changes the role of senators. They are now just like their counterparts in the House; the only differences are that their district is comprised of the entire state and they get to hang around for six years rather than two.
The problems go beyond theory. What about unfunded mandates? This is when Congress passes laws that require states to pay for them. Who is in the Congress to plead for the state governments and be concerned about state budgets? No one. In some respects, the state governments have become mere appendages of the national government. They have no say or recourse except to try to find relief through the courts.
Here’s another very specific consequence. The Senate has the responsibility for confirming federal judges, even to the Supreme Court. When going through the confirmation process, does any senator take into consideration how a judge’s judicial philosophy will affect state laws?
When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, forty-four state laws restricting abortion were overturned. If senators had to protect their state’s laws, as representatives of their respective legislatures, they would have been more attuned to whether the judges they placed on the Supreme Court would have the tendency to overthrow the principle of the sanctity of life.
In the past thirty-seven years, more than fifty million innocent children have lost their lives. Part of the blame should rest on the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment.
It’s time to consider the repeal of this amendment. Very few have taken up this cause. I know its repeal is not probable—but it is possible. If we can at least start the discussion, you never know where it may lead.
May the “Restoration Movement” continue to thrive.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
271 Comments
Good luck with that, but it's a really really good idea to toss the 17th out. Last I checked it was never properly ratified in the first place.
I have always supported Repeal of the 17th. Amendment.
As it stands now the states have no protection from the disease that's in Washington DC; so yes the Seventeenth Amendment needs to be repealed!
The 17th is a cornerstone in the destruction of the Constitution. It forever tilted the balance of the document to mob rule from Republican rule. Repeal it. The States were meant to have a defense against the Federal government not to aspire to become the best whore in the whore house. No offense to whores I'd rather have 536 of them running the federal government now – at least then I would know what the price is, and at least someone would leave Congress happy.
Superb idea! While we’re at get rid of the 16th and replace the tax code with the Fair Tax, remove the play toy of meddling politicians. Now that would be real change!
I wonder how different, things would be in California if this Amendment were repealed?
The legislature is so out of touch, corrupt, caring only about lining their own pockets and the rights of illegal aliens,
that we would be thankful to have such jewels as Barbara Boxer and Diane Fineswine…
in other words, in CA things would be worse if the legislsture picked the Senators…
Repealing the 17th amendment would also limit special-interest power in Washington. It would remove Senators from having to accumulate massive campaign war chests because they no longer need to win citizen votes, just the state legislature. Corporations and unions alike would not have the unbridled power they currently enjoy in both the house and the senate.
The people NEED to repeal the 17th amendment.
Two words…. "Al Franken"
I would be in favor of this provided that simultaneously we added a constitutional amendment making public sector unions illegal.
YES!!!
"Consequently, in 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment was added to the Constitution…"
It's hard to pick a better, "beginning of the end" point than that one.
I wonder what, if any, practical difference a repeal of the 17th Amendment would have? Couldn't it make things worse? If Senators are appointed by the state legislatures then it could make the earmark situation worse as Senators would be even more compelled to get special goodies for their states. Also, it would probably shift the balance of power in the Senate even more towards the Dems. Here in the South, most state legislatures are solidly Democratic even though people tend to vote Republican in national elections.
Hmmm. I thought one of the major tenants of the conservative movement was to have faith in the American people. Now you tell me you do not trust them to pick their own senators. OKayyy.
What I have not heard yet by these comments is the fact that the 17th amendment is the ONLY reason, we have socalism in America. The states put the federal government there and the states fought for the 10th amendment, but only hte senate gives that amendment teeth and enforcement power. The Founders wanted a balance betgween the states and the federal goevernment. Neither should be all pwoerful. That's why a Senate selected by the state governments makes the word Federal in our form of government a realty.
The only way we get to repel this is with a graoundswell of demand by the people, that means we need to spread the word and get it in the forefront of political discours. Difficult yes, impossible no.
Now there's a spectacular idea. Bye, bye IRS!
I support repealing the 17th amendment. Failing that, I would support an amendment to limit senate terms to 2 years, just like their directly elected counterparts.
Sorry about that. I didn't vote for that asshole.
Let's call it campaign finance reform since running for the Senate wouldn't require so much time and money if it was repealed. The passage of the 17th amendment greatly changed the balance of power to the Federal government from the States and made 1913 a very unlucky year for the Republic.
In Minnesota, he's known affectionately as 'Wanken Franken'……….
I'm not convinced repeal wouldn't just lead to more corruption at the state level, but I'm not opposed to
giving it a shot. Perhaps it would also throw a wrench into the K-Street problem we have. LOL, I can
dream, can't I?;-D
.
This would be an excellent move!
The 17th amendment was designed to take power away from the states and create a malleable senate that could be changed with the political winds instead of having a senate that actually served the people of each state.
By removing the ability of states to select senators we have created the "never ending campaign" in its place and put the loyalties of senators up for sale to the highest bidders.
Pre 17th amendment senators actually had a duty to serve their governors and the people of their respective states but post 17th amendment senators serve nobody's interests but their own.
This must end.
Sounds like a serious plan of action to consider once we elect representatives of the people, rather than the government come November 2nd and in 2012. Question is; Will these newly elected officials have the strength and integrity to take on the job? 2nd Question is; Will the American people get involved enough to hold their feet to the fire?
Flat tax, still too much wiggle room for the pol's with a fair tax. Let all who live and benefit from living here, contribute the same percentage based on income. That is fair.
The part that scares me about putting the power of choosing Senators into the state legislatures is my concern where we are with the welfare leaches. In CA, I'm concerned that the have-not's, the ones who suck off the taxpaying minority have finally figured out they can vote in state representatives that keep giving them free things. I am not sure if Ca can survive with this current legislative body in place. It does not look like any of this will change, so we would be sending more barbara boxer's to serve.
Consider this – if state legislatures elected the Senators, wouldn't the lobbying just shift to the state legislatures? Plus, local issues would be dwarfed in state elections as the main thing on people's minds would be who the state legislator would vote for in the Senate election.
The fair tax is not fair. It relies on the rebate system which is just another way to get people to vote for it. We need a percentage on consumption and income. None on capital creation – the greatest job creator on earth is capital – do not tax it!!!
"This reasoning was based on the belief that state governments usually legislated against the well-being of the people and assumed that if the people, not the state legislatures, chose the senators, they would no longer be corrupt."…
There's that 'hope and change' rearing it's ugly head again! Didn't exactly work out, did it??
I am not sure that you understand the Constitution. The house was to be the Peoples House and the Senate was to be the States House. By this amendment we have taken power away from the States and it needs to be repealed. Remember we are a Republic and NOT a Democracy. I suppose you support repealing the Electoral College. That is another progressive BAD idea.
too bad this wasn't done last year….then az wouldn't have to suffer with mccain AGAIN!
Count me among the fringe kooks who would love to see this happen. It never will, but it is a nice fantasy…
More "Anti-American" activity from the "Country First" republican "Right". Why is it everytime the republicans/conservatives are out of power they want to rewrite the constitution/Bill of right? Nut jobs!!!
Typical liberal post. Let's analyze this shall we?
The post completely ignores the context of the article. I mean COMPLETELY. Anyone who read it would understand this is about shifting power back to the states by having the state's pick people to represent them in the Senate. This isn't about trust or distrust of public. So this liberal fool shows us right off the bat that he is either too lazy to read, illiterate, just plain stupid, hateful, or a combo of all. None of those are good options.
Then the post he typed in consists of two sentences where he picks a premise, assumes it to be true, follows it up with a false premise then tosses in snide condescesion. This post contributes NOTHING to the topic, it's there soley to antagonize. There is no counter suggestion, no constructive retort, no analysis of facts or logic. Just empty space.
Pay attention to my points, because liberal posts are so easy to predict, analyze and refute. Know their games, and you realize how intellectually vacuous and shallow the left is.
The abortion argument in this article is a little far-fetched. I don't see any reason to suspect that Senators appointed by state legislatures would be more interested in the issue than Senators who were elected by the people. Plus, I was not aware that prior to Roe v. Wade, the abortion issue was on Senator's minds when they decided to vote to confirm a supreme court justice.
Both qualities are shining bright today…. closed and narrow.
I believe the tenant you are loosing grip of is local representation and involvement. Divesting non-critical elements from the national government places those issues back in the hands which are closer to home. This should preserve capital and create efficiencies by cultivating competition between the states. For example, there is no worth in paying large sums of money to the U.S. Dept. of Education just to have them return 80 cents on the dollar of what I pay in, back to my local schools. It would be a whole lot easier just to walk down the street and support the people who support my children directly. In return there would be a larger pool of money to help the school systems. Surely you can get behind saving education dollars for education and not spending those funds for air conditioning in D.C.
But we also need competition between the states. This is by far most critical as a stepping stone to remove unfunded mandates that the federal. This way, if a large group of uneducated people want to be beholden to large underfunded social programs that take the form of ponzi schemes and lead to bankruptcy, then they can all move to a newly created 51st state of despair rather than invade all of the other 50 states of productive capitalism.
Each state has a CEO, the Govenor of the state. Using the 10th ammendment as basis the Govenor could recall the sitting representatives back to the state for consultation concerning the legislative agenda being pushed at the national level. This should be done publically , with radio, television and newsprint notification that the Govenor has requested the representative return to the state and announce a public forum to be held with the representative so they can get feed-back from those who they represent or defend the position they are taking if it is contrary to what they ran on, or is in conflict with the constitution. Putting their feet to the fire will keep they on their toes.
To hell with you nay-sayers. This can and should be done. The first step is to put OUR Congress in place in D.C. Get to the polls in November and START MAKING IT HAPPEN!
Oh ye of little faith!
Drifter, I'd say you're missing the bigger picture here. Would Cali legislators pick rotten Senators? Probably. But the real impact of the Senate happens in Washington, where federal legislation lives or dies on the votes of 60 Senators. In a country where the State Legislatures have the job of protecting their State's interests, do you think their chosen Senators would have voted for a health care bill that crushes their budgets under federal mandates? California might. Maybe New York. Because they're insane. But there is virtually NO CHANCE they would have supported this monstrosity. And that's just ONE example of what a legitimate Senate might have stopped if not for the 17th amendment. California and New York be damned.
More lies from a self-hating Jew. We'll all pray for your shriveled soul.
People like you are living proof that all citizens can't be trusted to make good choices.
I have faith in the American people. Obviously, you do not.
Nothing is true. You want to take away my opportunity to vote for a senator from my state?
You're right on the mark, but you're wasting your time with this idiot. Old Stinky here is an America hater and a Progressive scumbag.
Count me in the "oh ye" category. I've SEEN state legislatures in action….you think DC is bad….visit some state legislatures, take a hard look at THEIR QUIET LITTLE CORRUPTION PARTY. They keep low profiles for good reason. The closer you get to the state, the more power within the state politicians wield.
I'm not ready for that…..but hey, I'm in Grijalva's district. You think my county and state legislators are any better?
holy crap….if they appointed Senators, we'd have illegals headed to DC. My God….
How about we FOLLOW ALL THE CONSTITUTION first…..then see where it needs to be shored up. If we can even get DC or the President to do THAT MUCH it will be a huge improvement. Just read the dam thing and follow it.
You have no faith, honor or intelligence. It's my sincere hope that we restore America so close to it's founding that morons like you move to Cuba where you'll feel more comfortable.
"even though people tend to vote Republican in national elections"
How is it that the tendency to vote Republican gave us a 60 vote democrat majority in the Senate? And not just democrat, but mostly radical, "progressive" democrats? "Couldn't it make things worse?" Trust me, NOTHING could make things worse than harry reid's senate.
What's in it for me? …right Husk.
To further the point, what are the odds that the state legislatures would all be rotten given that those local elections that most people count as even less important than Federal ones now would suddenly gain a lot more importance again. After all, your local votes also become your national votes prior to the 17th. CA and NY might not have gotten so far gone had people reason to pay attention to what they were electing to the state level.
You are one dim bulb!
Maybe, but look at the inverse, they have the responsibility to listen to the fianncial realities of their states. Why fight for legislation at a national level that goes against the interests of their own state governments entirely? States need the earmarks because those funds cannot be raised at a local level since they've already been appropriated by the Feds who used the Senate to grab power.
Urgent message from the 57th state!
Was there a point you were trying to make or were you simply demonstrating that you are still an ignorant, hate filled moron?
I have to give you credit. Sometimes it takes effort for a racist bigot to interject their racist bigotry into a topic. But you sir/it, EFFORTLESSLY manage to interject your racist bigotry. You sir/it take it to a level never before seen. Gratz on eleveateing bigotry to a new level.
Amen!
"Nothing is true. You want to take away my opportunity to vote for a senator from my state?"
YES! We do.
No, you vote for your state senators, or at least you should. Why should you call that disenfranchisement? Without the 17th, you have increased incentive to pick those state legislators wisely.
Maybe in case you missed, they want to fix the changes the progressives made to ruin the Constitution/Bill of Rights. Both the 16th and 17th amendments need to be repealed. As both of those amendments takes power away from the people and gives more the federal government.
Arent progressives more of a nut job as they support the federal government more over the will of the people. Cause, that is very "anti-American", especially when the demands of special interest and unions are chosen over the people themselves.
John…
I'm sure you're essentially correct that repeal would make for a better overall system…
But I live here in the "Golden State" haha…where, if the Legislators picked the Senators,
we'd have Poncho Villa and Jorge Santana representing us….
.Actually representing the illegals against us…
Either way that statement of 50 million defenseless children losing their lives turned my stomach. This is the side you support.
Okay, let's analyze this, yet again, typical liberal response.
First sentence makes a broad statement that is merely biased opinion, but stated as fact. Second sentence is the same but in question form. Third sentence is the obligatory insult.
So we have two falsehoods presented as factual and an insult. So in essence this post is worse than being completely empty as it contains 2 falsehoods. Also notice that posts from the left almost NEVER exceed 3-4 sentences because that would mean debate with logic facts or reason, things they lack. So instead it's easier to do a drive by falsehood and insult.
By the way, this post also ignores the historical fact that this would restore America to the way it has been for the MAJORITY of its existence. Liberals are so easily defeated just by looking at the facts at hand. You would think they would get tired of being constantly thrashed by their intellectual superiors.
Yes. It is a lovely idea to restore power to the people. Imagine…all much of politics would become local again. We (states) would have more power than the National Parties. Special interests would have to work harder for their corrupting influence.
I assume you didn't read the article or else you intentionally meant to try to thread jack with your meaningless drivel.
I'd say the only chance for repeal of the 17th would be an Article V constitutional convention, led by the States with ratification by 3/4 of the State legislatures. The U.S. Congress will NEVER repeal if left to themselves. A groundswell of the People couldn't even stop the health care debacle.
What a wonderful idea! Perhaps THE first step to to actually start the process of repealing the 17th amendment is to do just that! It's obvious that the time these Senators spend in D.C. is about their networks of lobbyists and campaign donors. Their staff sizes have exploded as they neglect even the most basic of their responsibilities to the people that have elected them.
You have no proof that I don't have faith in the American People. You can't make baseless claims like that. You have no integrity if you do and become your own joke. To the contrary, I believe that if we move us back closer to the limited government that the Consitution mandates the American people will prosper beyond their wildest dreams.
Or they could just stay in California since that seems to be what your second paragraph is describing.
Excellent points.
When was the last time that you read the Constitution?
"Section. 3.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for
six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote. "
"AMENDMENT XVII
Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six
years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors
of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue
writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to
make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid
as part of the Constitution "
The American People were never to elect the Senators for Congress, they were only to elect the President and the members of the House of Representatives which is written clearly in the Constitution. The Senators were to be selected by the State legislators so that the States have a say in the bills that are being discussed in the halls of Congress. The people's get their say in the halls of Congress through the House of Representatives.
Why do you think this was changed by the 17th Amendment in 1913? With this Amendment where does the State get a say in the Halls of Congress?
Notice I said "here in the SOUTH." I was talking about in the South, not nation-wide. Here in Arkansas, the state legislature is about 80% Democrat but McCain won the state in a landslide. If we switched to a system where state legislatures elected Senators, the South would go from having mostly GOP Senators to having mostly Dem Senators.
From the looks of it, I dont even think LJ is even capable of reading at all. Cause, maybe if he could read, he wouldnt be such a blabbing racist idiot. Then we could have a intellectual debate instead of the pointless insults and bigotry.
"we'd have Poncho Villa and Jorge Santana representing us….
.Actually representing the illegals against us…"
True enough. But you'd also have a plurality of the Senate voting Jorge and Poncho down every time, because the majority of States (Red States) would be compelled to support their non-illegal populations. And California would be in MUCH better shape because of it.
According to the Constitution the American people were not to select Senators, they were only to select the President and the members of House of Representatives. The 17th Amendment changed all this, which eliminated that States voice in Congress.
I support this fully, where can we sign a petition or something? Let's get this party started.
WOW! How did you go here? That is not what we were talking about. You and your response is exactly why it is difficult to have a frank discussion with a progressive/liberal. You are the problem. Stop being such a putz. Now if you would like to comment on the repeal of the 17th amendment I welcome a thoughtful comment.
Hey Cowboy. Check out this article in American Thinker.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/dr_king_an...
A very uplifting and empowering read.
In short, prior to 1913, U.S. Senators were servants of the States. Since then they have become leaders of the States, wielding even more power than their Governors.
Never say never! I think this an excellant idea which I thought of the first time I read the 17th amendment. The power of the states is down to nothing with this amendment in effect. Let's push as hard as we can to get this done. It seems that this was just another progressive reaction to a "crisis". Sound familiar?
"Denying the state legislatures the choice of senators has effectively eliminated state government influence on national legislation."
We really do need to restore the chain of command. Those who wrote and passed the 17th ammendment surely intended to turn the balance of power in favor of the federal government. What's more is many of the important decisions being made in this country are being made without consideration for the people much less the state and local governments. Were the states involved they might actually put many of these decisions to a vote rather than completely in the hands of the federal government and the so called representatives therein.
Probably not a bad idea — at least we wouldn't have to suffer through bogus senate elections.
.
Can't we just repeal all the senators?
Like I said, NO REPUBLICAN/CONSERVATIVE talk regarding the constitution/bill of right when the republican lead congress gave us the Patriot Act and Terry's Law. Where were ya?? Oh yeah, it was republicans doing it so that made it okay. I got ya!!!
"all much of politics would become local again."
Or it could have the opposite effect and turn state legislature campaigns into de facto U.S. Senate campaigns.
Sigh. I will go read up what was written during the change.
I always for legislation that limits/restricts the power of the central Federal gov, so I'm convinced…
But CA has along way to go before getting "right tracked" again… No matter who the Senators are…
I've come to the conclusion that the 17th was a mistake as well. Repeal it.
Your point is well taken. But the real issue is an historical one. Since the debate here is about the REPEAL of the 17th, you are right. Southern democrat legislatures would appoint only democrat Senators. (Here in Florida it would be slightly different) But if we looked at the affect of the 17th in history, imagining that it had never been ratified, there's a good chance that the democrat party would still be primarily a classical liberal party, not nearly as dangerous as the "progressive" marxist party it has devolved into. That, more than anything, fuels the hatred of the amendment.
But of course, that is just fantasy. It was ratified. The question of repeal is therefore MUCH more complicated, as your comments make very clear. Still it's good to have the debate. It's your opinion that gives me pause as to how we could eliminate the 17th without handing permanent control of the Senate to the radical "progressives." Interesting dilemma.
Hahahahahaha
The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
The Second American Revolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk&fe....
"We don’t really need a revolution in America; all we need to do is restore what once was."
Pls help me out, I am a foreigner. How many:
- mormons
- stanic worshippers
- jsuits
- mslims
- aclulibs
- brits (all ? EUcath olics)
…'once' shared the power with Christians?
"I welcome a thoughtful comment."
Ha. Don't hold your breath.
Those are YOUR WORDS, NOT OURS. They came from YOUR RANCID HEAD.
It has been a long process but we are seeming the fruits of their labor in fundamentally changing our country. They have weakened every part of our country through promotion of dependency on the govt by all the citizens of America. It is time to remove all the laws that do not make sense, do not work, and are useless. It is time for the All Americans to stand up to the govt and stop being the minor player in our country, the American people need to take control of our countries future.
Thank you for the heads up.
That indeed was an uplifting article.
Only one word comes to mind for this clown: IDIOT. Please link us to a page where you get positive ratings. It sure would be interesting to see how you communicate amongst your own. Wow.
Seems like you are taking power away from the people if you get rid of the 17th Amend? Am I missing something??
Why don't we also start calling the democrats what they really are, the "National Socialists Party" and is Obama a Liberal Fascist?
BTW, Did you know that Saul Alinsky is on the NEA Teachers Reading list?!? http://www.nea.org/tools/17231.htm
Two points 1) The Nation magazine is the longest running subscription magazine. It is Progressive, it has been subsidized beyond the subscription fee (shows that there is a hidden agenda) and it began in 1865. Coincidentally on July 25 1866 Congress passed a law that changed the manner and time of State Legislature's appointment of US Senators. Before this 1866 law, there were 2 delays in appointment of US Senator, 1 allegation of corruption, and no failures to appoint US Senators during the term. This 1866 law caused the process to be exposed to stalemates. After the 1866 law there were 71 delays, 17 failures to appoint US Senator during their entire term, and 14 allegations of corruption due to bribery. Everyone, including the states, were frustrated with this new law but instead of nullifying the law, congress called to take away this power from the states. The progressives were indeed involved in this process. If you check the facts, everything I have said is true which makes one conclude that the 17th amendment was passed in error because of a law passed in 1866 that was designed to cause stalemates, frustration, and lead to permanent change of our federal system. This information was originally published in a book by Ralph Rossum titled "Federalism, The Supreme Court, and the Seventeenth Amendment"
2) An Article V convention is a process our founders left for us in the US Constitution to help us get out of a situation such as we are in now where Congress is too powerful and not willing to police itself. Here is how it works: our state legislators (all 7000 of them nationwide) need to be given support by their constituents to call for this Article V convention. If 34 states call for this then a US Constitutional Convention automatically is organized. It has never been done before in our 234 year history so no one is sure how it will proceed but this is what I believe is supposed to happen according to the constitution. When Congress proposes an Amendment by 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate, a ratifying convention is called so the states can consider and vote on the amendment. Congress chooses whether it is to be voted on by state convention or state legislature. When the states call for a US Constitutional convention, it has to be approved by 34 states with the exact wording. If the wording includes that this convention is called for the specific purpose of repealing the 17th amendment then any amendments other than the repeal of the 17th would not have great support and would certainly not be ratified by 38 states. So this State called US Constitutional Convention is by design a very safe vehicle to use and most certainly more safe then travelling down the path we have been going down. Please join our group Saving our republic http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/group.php?gid=…
I agree on the repeal effort, I also feel that Obamacare would NEVER have made it past the senate if the representatives were appointed by the state legislature and directed to preserve and defend what was right and good for their individual states.
No form of government is perfect, but our founding fathers managed to get about as close as there ever was to perfection. Corruption will seep through every office whether elected by the people or appointed, this is an unfortunate truth, one of which I believe our founders recognized and tried their best to install checks and balances.
cont….
I guess that leaves the question of how long it would have taken the country to come off the rails if we had not found it necessary to ammend the constitution and allowed the SCOTUS to start interpreting the constitution as a living document, instead of always going back to the source and original intent?
We need a restoration…. of our country… I agree… but we need to throw out all that "case law" that is used as a basis to determine new rulings as well as the 17th ammendment… might even want to undo the 14th anchor baby ammendment as well. We permanently altered our country when we thought we were wiser than the founders!
One can NEVER mention the 17th Amendment, without mentioning Woodrow Wilson: http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/the-wilson-preside...
Welcome to Wilsons World!
What do you mean it was not properly ratified??? I know the Progressive/Socialist are a sneaky bunch, but this is the first I heard of this.
We learned a painful lesson in how it feels to live in terror under socialism this year from our Fed Govt. Anything that would dilute that unmitigated power should be tried.
Yeah, what a brilliant strategy to have government run schools teaching the little dummies about government, civics, we know they ban the teaching of any kind of morals, but yes, let the ignorant vote for those who made them ignorant in the first place? Do you really have faith in an ignorant government-taught electorate? In your own ignorant expression: OKayyy.
You must be logged in to post a comment.