Cato: Repealing the 17th is a noble but quixotic goal

[Matt Collins]

Repealing the 17th is a noble but quixotic goal:


http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11876&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatoRecentOpeds+%28Cato+Recen t+Op-eds%29

[Jeremy]

Does anyone have a Google Alert on the word "quixotic"?

[MelissaWV]

Substitute "quixotic" for "inconceivable." I knew the media reminded me of something...

YouTube - An inconceivable Montage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D58LpHBnvsI&NR=1)

[Elwar]

Cato sold out years ago.

[Matt Collins]

Does anyone have a Google Alert on the word "quixotic"?
It's probably in the AP Stylebook under "Ron Paul" :rolleyes:

[TonySutton]

My questions are:

Some states were electing Senators prior to the 17th, wasn't this unconstitutional?

What would stop states from not holding Senate elections and instead assigned Senators the old way?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Repeal the 17th amendment and it's adios Rand Paul, Peter Schiff and any other Senate candidates most here might like.

[Schiff_FTW]

Repeal the 17th amendment and it's adios Rand Paul, Peter Schiff and any other Senate candidates most here might like.

That would be well worth it. The 17th amendment was instrumental in the downfall of the Republic.

[Matt Collins]

Repeal the 17th amendment and it's adios Rand Paul, Peter Schiff and any other Senate candidates most here might like.
Remember though that the state governments are a check and balance against federal encroachment. Without having any representation in DC the state governments have no check on federal power. Having the Senators serve essentially as ambassadors to the federal government helps ensure the feds don't overrun the States.

[TheDriver]

Repeal the 17th amendment and it's adios Rand Paul, Peter Schiff and any other Senate candidates most here might like.

+1776

This is why I do not support the repeal of this!

Anyone who has ever been active in politics (outside of the party favorites) knows this would be a big fucking joke!

[specsaregood]

That would be well worth it. The 17th amendment was instrumental in the downfall of the Republic.

^this.

The more those use this quixotic word, the more I start to associate it with good wholesomeness. :)

[nobody's_hero]

The states should have some check over the federal goverment. Let the two levels fight it out and we make off with the freedom in the dogpile.

Or perhaps we could get a third house of the Congress. The House, the Senate, and the Assembly of Generally Disagreeable Statesmen (working title), which will help to make sure that the Constitution is not a one-way document.

Or we get the state legislatures involved in the appointment of Supreme Court justices.

I'm afraid I have to agree with the hard truth, though: it will be terribly impossible to repeal the 17th.

Once people have been given the right to vote on something, that cat is out of the bag.

[TonySutton]

Or we get the state legislatures involved in the appointment of Supreme Court justices.



That is the major failure of the 17th. Prior to the 17th the states were involved in the appointment of Supreme Court justices.

This is why treaties and Supreme Court justices are approved by the Senate, not the joint Congress. It is the representation of the states through the Senate to approve these.

[jmdrake]

Repealing the 17th is a noble but quixotic goal:


http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11876&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatoRecentOpeds+%28Cato+Recen t+Op-eds%29

:confused: What's wrong with the article? Half the liberty movement (myself included) is extremely worried about the idea of a constitutional convention. (Things are never so bad that they can't get worse). And why would anyone expect these same corrupt senators that brought you Obamacare and bailouts to vote themselves out of a job? In fact this is probably where you would have broad bipartisan support against something. So unless I'm really missing something (and I could be) the goal is indeed quixotic. That doesn't mean it's bad. Just unrealistic. If we had anywhere near the support to push for this we'd have the "audit the fed" bill passed by now.

[fisharmor]

:confused: What's wrong with the article? .... So unless I'm really missing something (and I could be) the goal is indeed quixotic. That doesn't mean it's bad. Just unrealistic.

What I think you're missing is the nuance of the word "quixotic".
There are plenty of other words like "impractical" and "unpragmatic" which mean "it ain't gonna happen" - but there are two problems with the word "quixotic" as applied here.

The word is a reference to the novel Don Quixote - it means literally to behave like the title character.
And as we all know, the title character was driven insane by his ideals, and ended up attacking windmills which he thought to be giants.
To apply the term here means that they are saying the 17th amendment isn't a problem, that we are too idealistic, and also that we are driven insane by those ideals.

That, and the etymology of "quixote" in Spanish can translate into English as "great horse's ass".

Fuck you, Cato. You made another enemy today. You need three more Hellers or raidmaps before I listen to you again.

[jmdrake]

What I think you're missing is the nuance of the word "quixotic".
There are plenty of other words like "impractical" and "unpragmatic" which mean "it ain't gonna happen" - but there are two problems with the word "quixotic" as applied here.

The word is a reference to the novel Don Quixote - it means literally to behave like the title character.
And as we all know, the title character was driven insane by his ideals, and ended up attacking windmills which he thought to be giants.
To apply the term here means that they are saying the 17th amendment isn't a problem, that we are too idealistic, and also that we are driven insane by those ideals.

That, and the etymology of "quixote" in Spanish can translate into English as "great horse's ass".

Fuck you, Cato. You made another enemy today. You need three more Hellers or raidmaps before I listen to you again.

Well the author clearly agreed that the 17th amendment was a problem. I always thought of Don Quixote as a "loveable eccectric", but I guess that's the same as "insane". I just never looked at him that way.

Anyhow, the analysis is correct.

[SLSteven]

Cato sold out years ago.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/01/11/ron-pauls-ugly-newsletters/


But we knew the company Ron Paul had been keeping, and we feared that they would have tied him to some reprehensible ideas far from the principles we hold.




But of course Ron Paul isn’t running for president. He’s not going to be president, he’s not going to be the Republican nominee for president, and he never hoped to be. He got into the race to advance ideas—the ideas of peace, constitutional government, and freedom. Succeeding beyond his wildest dreams, he became the most visible so-called “libertarian” in America. And now he and his associates have slimed the noble cause of liberty and limited government.

[Matt Collins]

:confused: What's wrong with the article? It pees on people's parade and discourages working towards a specific goal.


Half the liberty movement (myself included) is extremely worried about the idea of a constitutional convention. (Things are never so bad that they can't get worse). And why would anyone expect these same corrupt senators that brought you Obamacare and bailouts to vote themselves out of a job? In fact this is probably where you would have broad bipartisan support against something. So unless I'm really missing something (and I could be) the goal is indeed quixotic. That doesn't mean it's bad. Just unrealistic. If we had anywhere near the support to push for this we'd have the "audit the fed" bill passed by now.
Well the 17th needs to be repealed, but it won't be happening any time soon I agree. I am leery of a ConCon although I do think there is a chance it could be successful.

I just think the guy could've said what he said in a less jackass sort of way :)

[NewFederalist]

The 17th Amendment had to be passed because those Euro-centric slave owning males that wrote the Constitution didn't know what they were doing! Power to the people! ;)

[libertybrewcity]

is repealing the 17th amendment a possible goal? i think this could happen in the future but may be hard now. it would be very hard to push through the states and congress.

[RokiLothbard]

hmmm cato call is "quixotic". One more reason to be for it.

[heavenlyboy34]

That would be well worth it. The 17th amendment was instrumental in the downfall of the Republic.

I agree. I'm surprised so many here support "democracy" over classical Republicanism. :eek: