Repealing the 17th Amendment

[sratiug]

The 17th amendment must be repealed. It should be one of our major objectives. Can't we do this? It would make it possible to fight our battles on the state level to control the federal government instead of fighting nationally funded candidates in senate races.


http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200405120748.asp



http://www.articlev.com/repeal17.htm

[Truth Warrior]

I'd much rather see the efforts focused on the repeal of the 16th amendment. Better addresses a multitude of sins and evils. More bang for the buck.<IMHO>

[ConstitutionGal]

The 17th is how the states lost their representation in Congress and SHOULD be repealed along with several others (the 16th comes immediately to mind). IF we could get enough like minded people in Congress, a LOT COULD be changed but we'd better get in shape 'cause it's going to be a LONG uphill battle.

[Highstreet]

The 17th is how the states lost their representation in Congress and SHOULD be repealed along with several others (the 16th comes immediately to mind). IF we could get enough like minded people in Congress, a LOT COULD be changed but we'd better get in shape 'cause it's going to be a LONG uphill battle.

Exactly.

We need more people to get elected, and become a part of the Liberty Caucus in the house and start one in the senate.

Watch this video:
http://newr3volution.com/

[1836]

I've never known what to think about this.

In general, I favor more representation when possible.

That being said, I can understand how the legislatures' election of senators would keep them focused on state and not federal concerns.

Interesting to see NRO talk about it.

[angelatc]

I've never known what to think about this.

In general, I favor more representation when possible.

That being said, I can understand how the legislatures' election of senators would keep them focused on state and not federal concerns.

Interesting to see NRO talk about it.

You're not being represented though. THe lobbyists are being represented.

The 17th was a terrible idea. It totally screwed up the balance.

[JordanQ72]

[mod-edit - this post is completely off topic and appears to be a lame attemt at thread-jacking- please ignore- thanks]

2nd, 5th, and 19th need to be gotten rid of if anything.

[1836]

You're not being represented though. THe lobbyists are being represented.

The 17th was a terrible idea. It totally screwed up the balance.

Well, it's not the way it works out, but the principle of how it is done.

By that logic, you might as well abolish all of Congress.

[acptulsa]

2nd, 5th, and 19th need to be gotten rid of if anything.

You want to abolish the right to bear arms and the prohibition of forced self-incrimination?! You want to get rid of 20% of the Bill of Rights?! Count me out!

[limequat]

You want to abolish the right to bear arms and the prohibition of forced self-incrimination?! You want to get rid of 20% of the Bill of Rights?! Count me out!

Yeah, WTF is that all about???

[Chester Copperpot]

2nd, 5th, and 19th need to be gotten rid of if anything.

HUH!?!!

[ronpaulhawaii]

I have added a little something to post # 7, ;)


...carry on

:D

[aksmith]

I'm learning what to think of the 17th amendment more every day. Dealing with the county and state republican parties on a daily basis, if those asshats picked a senator we'd get complete losers. Just like we get complete losers now, but at least they have to try to keep us a little happy. If they had to kiss the behinds of our local parties and elected doofuses, America would be hopeless.

Actually, the more I think about it, it makes zero difference how those people get picked.

[acptulsa]

Yeah, that's why the 17th happened, because the state legistatures weren't doing a very good job. One would hope that this would make people pay more attention to what they put in the state house, but it didn't historically work that way. If we can get voters engaged in the process and work out systems to get them informed...

[virginiakid]

Make the governors accountable to the people by the senators he/she places in office. Absolutely. This is what should be done.

[1836]

I'm learning what to think of the 17th amendment more every day. Dealing with the county and state republican parties on a daily basis, if those asshats picked a senator we'd get complete losers. Just like we get complete losers now, but at least they have to try to keep us a little happy. If they had to kiss the behinds of our local parties and elected doofuses, America would be hopeless.

Actually, the more I think about it, it makes zero difference how those people get picked.

+1

Smoke filled rooms, even more than now, would be the worry.

[LibertiORDeth]

Interestingly, wasn't this the year the Federal Reserve Act was created?

[acptulsa]

Interestingly, wasn't this the year the Federal Reserve Act was created?

It was the 16th Amendment that made the Federal Reserve Act possible.

[Minlawc]

It was the 16th Amendment that made the Federal Reserve Act possible.

Both the 16th and 17th Amendments were passed in the same year, 1913, and the two go together in the destruction of our Republic. They both NEED to be repealed, but they won't unless there is a large public outcry.

[sratiug]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42711

It seems to me that since no "state" may be deprived of its senators without its consent and many states did not ratify the 17th amendment and Utah specifically rejecting it that we don't really have a senate anymore. State legislatures may be corrupt, but would we have "no child left behind" and other federal mandates on states without the 17th amendment

It would be a shame if some of these millionaire pro-amnesty, pro-NAU CFR senators was replaced by their legislature, wouldn't it????

[tpreitzel]

The 17th amendment must be repealed. It should be one of our major objectives. Can't we do this? It would make it possible to fight our battles on the state level to control the federal government instead of fighting nationally funded candidates in senate races.


http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200405120748.asp



http://www.articlev.com/repeal17.htm

Absolutely critical. The fight for freedom is having much difficulty due to this terrible amendment. The negative consequences of this amendment's passage are simply staggering. For example, since senators are not currently appointed by the state legislatures, where is the state input when deciding to go to war IAW Article 1, Section 8? I've been harping on this subject even longer than Devvy Kidd, I believe. Repeal should be an utmost priority, and today couldn't be soon enough.

[runderwo]

If we can get voters who don't care about freedom and haven't read the Constitution disenfranchised from the process and work out systems to get them informed...

Fixed that for you.

[angelatc]

Well, it's not the way it works out, but the principle of how it is done.

By that logic, you might as well abolish all of Congress.

No, my logic would have the people represented in the House and the State represented in the Senate. That's how it was supposed to be.

[1836]

No, my logic would have the people represented in the House and the State represented in the Senate. That's how it was supposed to be.

I certainly can believe it. I just believe that when the people have a vote, even if the result is worse that way, at least the people had a vote.

That being said, I wonder if there are any corresponding documents from the founders about this issue.

[Thomas Paine]

The 17th Amendment has to be one of the dumbest amendments ever added to the U.S. Constitution. The Founding Fathers had the foresight to recognize that it is sufficient to have one house in the Congress directly elected by the people to address the people's concerns. However, the states need to have a house dedicated to redressing the several states' concerns, which does not always coincide with the will of the people.

Nowadays, we have Senators who must raise $30,000 per day for every day for six years in order to finance their re-election. It would be better if the Senators were more concerned about state matters rather than fundraising.

[Misesian]

You want to abolish the right to bear arms and the prohibition of forced self-incrimination?! You want to get rid of 20% of the Bill of Rights?! Count me out!

No he does not. At least if he's going with an original intent purpose.

Even amongst the anti-federalists there was arguments about including a "bill of rights" in general. It would have just been assumed that nothing that's NOT mentioned in the Constitution is off limits from government. The view was that you can't enumerate every possible right to keep the government out of our lives so leave out a bill of rights completely.

I agree with that thought at that point in time, but if we repealed the 2nd amendment now we'd simply speed up the grabbing of all guns since we've become dependent on a document giving us rights rather than them just being unalienable.

Too bad we didn't have another revolution when the Federalists wanted to expand power with the Constitution itself. We gave up liberty for temporary security when we moved away from the Articles of Confederation. I'm still a Constitutionalist though just because it's the Supreme Law of the land and most things would be OK if it were followed as it was ratified. I just happen to agree with the anti-federalists who protected all of these things that would happen and did.

[angelatc]

I certainly can believe it. I just believe that when the people have a vote, even if the result is worse that way, at least the people had a vote.

.

The people get to vote for the members of the House. That's why all the spending bills have to originate in the House.

I certainly don't believe that majority rule is necessarily the best solution to anything. Personally, I like the idea of the Governor having a 2 voices to represent him as the representative of the entire state.

This system "the governor and his legislature pick the Senators" system mimcs the electoral college, which is absolutely brilliant, and accentuates the methodology of the system as designed.

If they 17th was repealed, there wouldn't be much of a need for term limits.

[Misesian]

The people get to vote for the members of the House. That's why all the spending bills have to originate in the House.

I certainly don't believe that majority rule is necessarily the best solution to anything. Personally, I like the idea of the Governor having a 2 voices to represent him as the representative of the entire state.

This system "the governor and his legislature pick the Senators" system mimcs the electoral college, which is absolutely brilliant, and accentuates the methodology of the system as designed.

If they 17th was repealed, there wouldn't be much of a need for term limits.

Wasn't the federal government essentially created as a government FOR the states? Certainly the 17th should be repealed and the Senators should ONLY represent the states and not the sheeple.

[Paul4Prez]

I fail to see how having party insiders in the state legislature pick the Senators will give us better Senators than having the voters pick them directly. I also think it's a non-starter with public opinion -- people like the idea of choosing their own district and state representatives.

[sratiug]

I fail to see how having party insiders in the state legislature pick the Senators will give us better Senators than having the voters pick them directly. I also think it's a non-starter with public opinion -- people like the idea of choosing their own district and state representatives.

It may not give you better people but what it will give you is a Senator responsible to the state government (crooked or not), as opposed to one responsible to the people and the money that get him his votes.

If our state parties were anti CFR-NAU, and our state platforms, the CFR couldn't pick our senatorial candidates just by giving them money and tv time -they'd have to bribe state legislators. Although somehow it seems they gave us the Federal Reserve anyway.

It just seems that states are the peoples only ally against the tyrrany of the federal government. And state governments are waking up to the immigration and NAU problem. I think states should appoint senators in whatever way they want. By the governor or the legislature. And they should be on a short string and be recalled at any time before or after any important vote (and they should all be important).