Senator-Elect Mike Lee Discussing Repeal of the 17th Amendment and More on Judge's FW

[MRoCkEd]

Meet Mike Lee, soon to be Rand's top ally in the US Senate, discussing the need to repeal the 17th amendment on Freedom Watch.

YouTube - Mike Lee on Freedom Watch 11/6/10: Repeal 17th Amendment and Term Limits p2/5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOVwXtgcEyM&feature=player_embedded)

More from Lee:

Mike Lee says shutting down the federal government “may absolutely be necessary” to get spending under control.

(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44368.html#ixzz14jEiQS3k)

[FrankRep]

Repeal it!


Tea Party Wants to Dump 17th Amendment? (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/3689-tea-party-wants-to-dump-17th-amendment)

There is a sizable bloc of Tea Party supporters calling for repeal of the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 17th Amendment establishes direct, popular election of U.S. Senators, superseding Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 1 and 2 which empowered state legislatures to elect senators. by Joe Wolverton II

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

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

Repeal Direct Election of Senators? (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/5051-repeal-direct-election-of-senators)

Mike Lee, the Republican nominee for the Senate in the Utah election this year, supports repealing the 17th Amendment. “People would be better off if senators, when they deliver their messages to Washington, remember the sovereignty of the state,” Lee told reporters recently. by Bruce Walker

[malkusm]

Yep....I was trying to hammer this into everyone's head. Mike Lee is going to be a great Senator.

[rich34]

I understand what his intent in this is and know that is used to be this way at one time, however, I'm not so sure I'd want my WV legislature always picking my senator. Then again the people aren't much better. In an ideal world where you had a whole legislatures of Ron/Rand Pauls we could rely on them to pick the very best one of the lot to represent us in Washington. That not being the case, had the 17th amendment already been repealed then we wouldn't have a Rand Paul, or Mike Lee.

What do you guys think about this? I see pro's n con's on both sides.

[low preference guy]

I'm not so sure I'd want my WV legislature always picking my senator.

Why not? The Senators would be more likely to vote for Supreme Court Justices who respect states rights and you will still be able to vote for your Congressman.

[malkusm]

I understand what his intent in this is and know that is used to be this way at one time, however, I'm not so sure I'd want my WV legislature always picking my senator. Then again the people aren't much better. In an ideal world where you had a whole legislatures of Ron/Rand Pauls we could rely on them to pick the very best one of the lot to represent us in Washington. That not being the case, had the 17th amendment already been repealed then we wouldn't have a Rand Paul, or Mike Lee.

What do you guys think about this? I see pro's n con's on both sides.

Much easier to throw out the state legislature than it is to throw out an incumbent Senator. State legislatures would also seek to maintain their own power, and so would be wary of a Senator who would cede their power to the banks of the Potomac.

[wormyguy]

I would rather have a system where my senators are elected by incarcerated serial rapists than by members of the esteemed Massachusetts legislature. Sorry.

[TheDriver]

I do not support this. In Kentucky, Trey Grayson would be Senator right now if the 17th had been repealed prior to the 2010 election.


This is an extremist idea, given the current political climate.

It's also a political trap in an election.... "So and so wants to take away your right to elect your Senator"

[rich34]

In principle I agree, but in today's world I'm sure there would be money flowing into coughers of state legislature's and as long as they were bringing home the bacon the state legislature would never throw them out, such as a guy like Bob Byrd.

But I do agree with this method in general. I believe it would cost the bankers MUCH MUCH more money to maintain control of a system like that than it would to maintain under current conditions. Under the former they'd almost have to buy off the majority of state legislatures as well to maintain complete power.

[malkusm]

In principle I agree, but in today's world I'm sure there would be money flowing into coughers of state legislature's

Well, if there's not already, there soon will be....if I have my way: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=267235

[low preference guy]

This is an extremist idea

what? this is strange. TheDriver talking like an establishment tool?

[Kotin]

what? this is strange. TheDriver talking like an establishment tool?

He said that in the context of today's political climate.. It's a hard argument to beat.. Would Rand Paul have been elected without a 17th amendment? Or would it have been Trey Grayson..?

[Theocrat]

I do not support this. In Kentucky, Trey Grayson would be Senator right now if the 17th had been repealed prior to the 2010 election.


This is an extremist idea, given the current political climate.

It's also a political trap in an election.... "So and so wants to take away your right to elect your Senator"

The 17th Amendment denies the principle of states' rights and sovereignty by which the states can protect themselves from intrusive federal involvement in their affairs through the election of their own representatives. That is one cool thing about having a bicameral legislature in Congress.

[TheDriver]

what? this is strange. TheDriver talking like an establishment tool?

I guess I should have added *tongue-in-cheek* to that part....


However letting my state reps decide who my senator should be seems rather extreme given their limited understanding of the founders' principles. :o

[MRoCkEd]

If we never had the seventeenth amendment, maybe we wouldn't need someone like Rand Paul to fix up the huge mess...

But then again, counterfactual history is always difficult.

[klamath]

I don't think the founding fathers realized just how precise and effective modern day gerrymandering would be.

[payme_rick]

Without the 17th, people would pay a lot more attention to their state government, which would be a very good thing...

[FrankRep]

Without the 17th, people would pay a lot more attention to their state government, which would be a very good thing...

Yes, I agree.

Plus, Good State Representatives will equal Good Senators. That's the key.

[tpreitzel]

I second the motion to repeal the 17th amendment. :)

[tpreitzel]

Much easier to throw out the state legislature than it is to throw out an incumbent Senator. State legislatures would also seek to maintain their own power, and so would be wary of a Senator who would cede their power to the banks of the Potomac.

Right. Due to the total lack of representation is the US Senate, the state legislatures have little reason to fight for their constitutional rights, i.e. power.

[Pericles]

If we never had the seventeenth amendment, maybe we wouldn't need someone like Rand Paul to fix up the huge mess...

But then again, counterfactual history is always difficult.

That /\/\/\