"What's the big deal with the 17th Amendment???"

[Matt Collins]

The question is asked:

http://goldni.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-i-dont-get-about-repealing-17th.html (http://goldni.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-i-dont-get-about-repealing-17th.html)



.

[malkusm]

The Judge explains it pretty well in his book Lies the Government Told You.


Can an amendment to the Constitution be unconstitutional? I submit it can, even if lawfully adopted, if it strikes at the core values of the Constitution. Removing the representation of the States as States in the central government was a direct and impermissable assault on federalism; more tyranny of the majority. It undermines the premise that the people and the States would have a place at the federal table. It also undermines the States' check on federal corruption of states' rights. This amendment, along with the Sixteenth (which permitted federal income taxes), has contributed more to 1984-style Big Government than any other. If anyone tells you that this Amendment enfranchises voters, tell that person that the Amendment disenfranchises the States.

[FrankRep]

Representative Louie Golmert of Texas has recently proposed that United States senators be elected as they once were, by the legislatures of the states. This would require a repeal of the 17th Amendment, which requires direct election of senators by the people. by Bruce Walker


Should We Repeal the 17th Amendment? (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3229-should-we-repeal-the-17th-amendment)


Bruce Walker | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
31 March 2010


Representative Louie Golmert of Texas has recently proposed that United States senators be elected as they once were, by the legislatures of the states. This would require a repeal of the 17th Amendment, which requires direct election of senators by the people.

When the Constitution was adopted, state governments were given great power and, in particular, state legislatures were given vast power. This was intended to make the language of the Constitution, which preserves the states as sovereign entities, protect that sovereignty in practice. When the two senators from each state were chosen by state legislatures, then those senators would not last long if they advocated a surrender of state power to the federal government.

The president also was not chosen by the people, but by presidential electors who were chosen themselves not by the people but by the state legislatures. This effectively gave state legislatures control over the presidency and the Senate. Because the president nominates and the Senate confirms federal judges, the nomination and confirmation of members of thee Supreme Court and all inferior federal courts also were subject to veto by the states.

The intention of the Founding Fathers was that these United States be a federation of equal members. Each state might have very different policies and laws on different issues, but people could choose which state they wished to live in, and so robust state governments naturally led to general freedom for all Americans.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights, which enshrined the sovereignty of the states, could not be amended without the concurrence of three quarters of the states. Again, the Founding Fathers saw how to prevent the federal government from whittling away at states’ rights.

The crumbling of states’ rights became when federal judges began to arrogate to themselves the power to amend the Constitution by simply reading it as they chose. Five justices became equal to 76 state legislative chambers. State legislators also gave up their power to choose presidential electors by providing that these individuals be elected by the people (in the early American presidential elections, there was no “popular vote” at all — not even for presidential electors.)

The greatest loss, though, came when the states voluntarily agreed to amend the Constitution so that the people, not the state legislators, would now choose the members of the Senate. After that, there were virtually no real checks that state governments had to preserve their balanced rights in our federal system. Would amending the Constitution to repeal the 17th Amendment restore that balance? Yes, if state legislatures also became to assume responsibility again for electing the president (by choosing the electors, rather than leaving that to the people) and if state legislatures had the backbone to begin to reassert their rights.

The strong reaction to the massive healthcare bill by states’ attorneys general is a good sign that perhaps states are ready to step back into their intended role in our federal system. Having robust states is not a partisan issue. It is not even an issue on what policies a particular state should adopt (if Massachusetts wishes to tax itself into penury, it is that state’s right — as long as the rest of us do not need to bail the Bay State out.)


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3229-should-we-repeal-the-17th-amendment

[Peace&Freedom]

Excellent article and proposal by Golmert. One other effect of the 17th Amendment was the removal of resistance in the Senate to treaties that undermine American sovereignty. When the treaty to establish a League of Nations was defeated by the Senate at the end of WWI, for example, the defeat was mainly due to the fact that, even though the new amendment was in place, the Senate was still mostly occupied by members who had originally been elected by their state legislatures.

Their residual loyalty stopped them from creating a LoN monster---and it's no coincidence that the CFR started a few years later, to help crank up a new world war that would result in forming the UN twenty-some years later. The next generation of (popularly elected) Senators did approve the UN, and most subsequent sovereignty-destroying bills that have followed.

[nbruno322]

YouTube - Judge Napolitano: Repeal the "Progressive" 17th Amendment For Better Local Representation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFUctrLsuFM)

[Vessol]

YouTube - Judge Napolitano: Repeal the "Progressive" 17th Amendment For Better Local Representation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFUctrLsuFM)

Great video. It would have been perfect if you didn't have Comedian Beck trying to insert a fucking joke every second.