Ron Paul Wants to Repeal the 17th Amendment?

[Knightskye]

He said that in his CPAC speech - that he wants to repeal the 16 and 17th.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_aZn6wqAdQ

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...nts_11-27.html

AMENDMENT XVII

Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

He wants to change the rules for the Senate? To what?

[UtahApocalypse]

Wonder if he wants to make it where you can be in the House, and run for Senate without having to sacrifice your seat.

[gls]

Before the 17th Amendment U.S. Senators were selected by state legislatures instead of by popular vote. This was a fundamental aspect of the Republic that the founders set up. It is one of the main reasons the federal government has gotten so big and out of control.

[angelatc]

He said that in his CPAC speech - that he wants to repeal the 16 and 17th.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_aZn6wqAdQ

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...nts_11-27.html



He wants to change the rules for the Senate? To what?

To the way it used to be, where the Senators were appointed by the state legislatures. It empowers the governors, and gives the states the power they were intended to have. It also eliminates the need for term limits.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo93.html

[idiom]

Repealing it would return the Senate to state legislature appointemnts leaving only the House as directly elected.

This would wind back the progress of democracy and help people comprehend the difference between a Republic and a Democracy.

With two directly elcted bodies and a directly elected President, the idea of the republic is greatly undermined.

[Rangeley]

George Will wrote a column about the repeal of the 17th amendment recently: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022003034.html

[Kotin]

the 17th amendment effectively ended the notion of the Federal Government being an agent of the states.


I am in favor of this strongly, as well.

[Knightskye]

Great. One more thing from 1913 to abolish.

[Athan]

He said that in his CPAC speech - that he wants to repeal the 16 and 17th.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_aZn6wqAdQ

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...nts_11-27.html



He wants to change the rules for the Senate? To what?

If he wants to repeal those amendments, we are going to $#@!ing repeal those amendments so hard those amendments won't even know what happened.

[Lucille]

When I heard him say that I was all, "Yes!"

[Matt Collins]

The government of China has representation in Washington, DC. The government of Utah does not.

[Chieftain1776]

Zell Miller, "conservative Democrat", introduced the repeal of the 17th amendment as one of his final acts in 2004 and made this speech on the floor of the Senate. Here are a few parts:

"The U.S. Senate has become just one big, bad, ongoing joke, held hostage by special interests and so impotent an eighteen wheeler truck loaded with Viagra would do no good." (Just had to include this...hilarious)

"Federalism, for all practical purposes, has become to this generation of leaders some vague philosophy of the past that is dead, dead, dead. It isn't even on life support. That line on the monitor went flat sometime ago.

You see, the reformers of the early 1900's killed it dead and cremated the body when they allowed for the direct election of U.S. senators. Up until then, U.S. senators were chosen by state legislatures, as Madison and Hamilton had so carefully crafted.

Direct elections of senators, as good as that sounds, allowed Washington's special interests to call the shots, whether it's filling judicial vacancies or issuing regulations. The state governments aided in their own collective suicide by going along with the popular fad of the time. "

"The 17th Amendment was the death of the careful balance between state and federal governments. As designed by that brilliant and very practical group of Founding Fathers, the two governments would be in competition with each other and neither could abuse or threaten the other.

The election of U.S. senators by the state legislatures was the linchpin that guaranteed the interests of the states would be protected. "

[tremendoustie]

I agree with repealing the 17th, not because I think we need to be more republic-like, putting the representatives farther from the people, but because I want the Fed government to understand that they serve the states, not the other way around.

[Alawn]

The 17th Amendment was the worst thing to ever happen to this nation. It destroyed the last bit of state sovereignty. Of course we should get rid of it. Before it the state legislature voted for the senate. It was a separation of powers issue. Senators were voted for by the states and the house was voted for by the people. Senators would vote to keep the power with the states and not for totalitarian federal government.

[slothman]

I agree it should be repealed.
The lack of the 17th is one thing that made this a "federal" country and not a "unitary" country.

[Bradley in DC]

The main point to understand is that the senate was devised to represent the interests of the sovereign states. Dr. Paul wants to go back to that design whereby the states themselves would decide how to pick their own representation in the senate (it could still be by popular vote ).

[nate895]

The main point to understand is that the senate was devised to represent the interests of the sovereign states. Dr. Paul wants to go back to that design whereby the states themselves would decide how to pick their own representation in the senate (it could still be by popular vote ).

I believe that most states had popular votes on the subject, but ultimately the state legislatures had the ultimate vote in the matter.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Even when they had what amounted to a poll, the legislature still didn't have to accede to it.

[cthulhufan]

Before the 17th Amendment U.S. Senators were selected by state legislatures instead of by popular vote. This was a fundamental aspect of the Republic that the founders set up. It is one of the main reasons the federal government has gotten so big and out of control.

Yep. I've always viewed this a a good thing.

[Scott38]

Dumb questions.

How do we do this? What are the steps? How long would or could this process take?

Scott

[Knightskye]

I agree with repealing the 17th, not because I think we need to be more republic-like, putting the representatives farther from the people

How close are you to your Senators?

Dumb questions.

How do we do this? What are the steps? How long would or could this process take?

Scott

1. Repeal the 17th Amendment.
2. Override Obama's veto.
3. Have state legislatures vote during the primaries and Election Day for Senate instead of people, who will still vote for congressman and President.
4. Rejoice.

I think it could be done right away. You'd just need to not put Senators on ballots in polling places.

[RonPaulVolunteer]

Before the 17th Amendment U.S. Senators were selected by state legislatures instead of by popular vote. This was a fundamental aspect of the Republic that the founders set up. It is one of the main reasons the federal government has gotten so big and out of control.

You got it!

[qh4dotcom]

The 17th amendment says each senator will serve a term of 6 years...I guess this is what RP doesn't agree with considering he likes term limits....6 years is way too long for a senator who abuses power.

[angelatc]

The 17th amendment says each senator will serve a term of 6 years...I guess this is what RP doesn't agree with considering he likes term limits....6 years is way too long for a senator who abuses power.

That's not it at all. The 6 year term is for stability. The House members get 2. the President gets 4, and the Senate gets 6. It was clearly designed to keep the power with the states.

[Knightskye]

That's not it at all. The 6 year term is for stability. The House members get 2. the President gets 4, and the Senate gets 6. It was clearly designed to keep the power with the states.

There weren't any presidential term limits in the Constitution, were there?

FDR was in for 12.

[brandon]

It amazes me how someone could be a member at this forum for well over a year and not already be aware of and understand the arguments against the 17th.

It's crazy that we are clinging to the delusion of a "grand awakening" of the general public when the people knee deep in the movement don't understand the basics.

[tpreitzel]

Before the 17th Amendment U.S. Senators were selected by state legislatures instead of by popular vote. This was a fundamental aspect of the Republic that the founders set up. It is one of the main reasons the federal government has gotten so big and out of control.

Indeed. The subtle, negative ramifications of allowing the masses to select senators instead of allowing state legislatures to appoint them continues unabated. The negative effects of the 17th amendment on our republic is nearly endless. Because of the 17th amendment, we have a democracy (mob rule) instead of a true republic where states have a prominent voice in Congress along with the people, a true bicameral legislature.

[Knightskye]

It amazes me

I'm sure it does.

It's crazy that we are clinging to the delusion of a "grand awakening" of the general public when the people knee deep in the movement don't understand the basics.

I haven't seen it discussed, and this is the first time I've heard Dr. Paul mention his position on it.