PDA

View Full Version : Miller supports reppeal of 17th, draws criticism




itshappening
10-06-2010, 05:00 AM
FAIRBANKS — Opponents of Republican nominee for U.S. Senate Joe Miller were on the attack Tuesday after he suggested that senators should be elected by state legislatures rather than by popular vote.

Miller made the comments Monday at a town hall meeting in Fairbanks. Following a question from an audience member about term limits, Miller criticized the culture of the Capital, saying that members of Congress are “treated like royalty.”

He said he supports an amendment imposing term limits as well as repealing the 17th Amendment, the 1913 addition to the Constitution that provides for senators to be elected by popular vote rather than by state legislatures.

http://newsminer.com/view/full_story/9780231/article-U-S--Senate-candidate-Joe-Miller-s-support-for-repealing-17th-Amendment-draws-criticism?instance=home_news_window_left_bullets

cindy25
10-06-2010, 05:36 AM
repealing the 17th would result in fewer choices; the legislatures would never have picked Paul, or O'Donnell or Lee, or Miller

in Lincoln's time most people knew who their state legislators were, hence the 1858 Lincoln Douglas debates. people today could not connect the dots.

Eroberer
10-06-2010, 05:47 AM
I think it would be easier to change local candidates than it would be a senator. Plus, the people are already represented by the House.

malkusm
10-06-2010, 05:51 AM
The 17th Amendment is almost as bad as the 16th in terms of destroying the Founders' intent. The power structure in DC was set up to give the House of Representatives to represent the people at large, and the Senate to represent the states. The 17th Amendment removed the states' bargaining power, and thus reduced the Senate from defender of states' rights and the 10th Amendment to a bunch of political elites who are nearly impossible to remove.

RforRevolution
10-06-2010, 07:29 AM
WOW. To come out and say that during a very high stakes election takes conviction. I had my doubts about him, but he's sounding very libertarian.

ChaosControl
10-06-2010, 09:03 AM
Good for him.

Cowlesy
10-06-2010, 09:04 AM
The 17th Amendment is almost as bad as the 16th in terms of destroying the Founders' intent. The power structure in DC was set up to give the House of Representatives to represent the people at large, and the Senate to represent the states. The 17th Amendment removed the states' bargaining power, and thus reduced the Senate from defender of states' rights and the 10th Amendment to a bunch of political elites who are nearly impossible to remove.

^^^^This.

TheDriver
10-06-2010, 09:31 AM
Trey Grasyson (or maybe Jack Conway) would be the senate nominee from Kentucky if this was repealed, with that in mind, I cannot support the repeal of this, at this time.

Maybe in some future world where people understand liberty - liberty heaven - but this is the real world.

roho76
10-06-2010, 09:37 AM
repealing the 17th would result in fewer choices; the legislatures would never have picked Paul, or O'Donnell or Lee, or Miller

in Lincoln's time most people knew who their state legislators were, hence the 1858 Lincoln Douglas debates. people today could not connect the dots.

I disagree. I think they would have picked someone exactly like Rand. Do you think they would pick someone who would go to Washington who would be big government and ignore the states? They would choose those who's allegiance is to their own power and not that of DC's. States are struggling to get out from under the thumb of the Feds hence the reason for Medical Marijuana laws, 10th amendment resolutions, and all the other states rights legislation being passed recently. State level legislators don't run to give away their power to the Feds.

Brian4Liberty
10-06-2010, 11:04 AM
Call me cynical. Either way, they will be chosen by powerful lobbyists.

Vessol
10-06-2010, 11:07 AM
Call me cynical. Either way, they will be chosen by powerful lobbyists.

This.

However many who get upset at the repeal of the 17th Amendment usually don't understand the reason why Senators were elected by State houses to begin with.

Koz
10-06-2010, 01:23 PM
The 17th Amendment is almost as bad as the 16th in terms of destroying the Founders' intent. The power structure in DC was set up to give the House of Representatives to represent the people at large, and the Senate to represent the states. The 17th Amendment removed the states' bargaining power, and thus reduced the Senate from defender of states' rights and the 10th Amendment to a bunch of political elites who are nearly impossible to remove.

This

tpreitzel
10-06-2010, 01:31 PM
Way to go, Joe! Repealing the 17th amendment is absolutely critical to restoring the proper balance of power in Washington, D.C.

low preference guy
10-06-2010, 01:37 PM
The 17th Amendment is almost as bad as the 16th in terms of destroying the Founders' intent.

it's hard to say which one is worse. both are really bad. the seventeenth encourages the appointment of SC justices that don't care about states rights. i don't think Gonzalez vs. Raich would've happened with appointment of Senators by state legislatures. it feels to me like the 17th amendment enacted a change even more structural than allowing an income tax, so the 17th is worse than the 16th in my book.

low preference guy
10-06-2010, 01:53 PM
Trey Grasyson (or maybe Jack Conway) would be the senate nominee from Kentucky if this was repealed, with that in mind, I cannot support the repeal of this, at this time.

Maybe in some future world where people understand liberty - liberty heaven - but this is the real world.

In that world, Trey Grayson and Jack Conway would be strong defenders of states rights, because legislatures would be less likely to appoint Senators who want to violate their autonomy. And this would happen not only in KY but across the country, so it would be fine, possibly even better than electing Rand Paul. Cases like Gonzalez vs. Raich would very likely have never happened.