« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Repeal The 17th Amendment!

...Let's Reform Government

By: BigGator5 (Diary)  |  November 14th, 2008 at 09:10 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

While I am here talking about a constitutional amendment, I thought I take the time and talk about Prop 8 and it’s impact.

Henry VIII

Let me be brutally honest with you. Since Henry VIII got his hands on marriage, it hasn’t been the same. We all know the story. Henry didn’t get a son from his first wife and so he wanted a divorce. Rome at the time didn’t think that was a good enough reason and so did not oblige the King of England. So Henry threw a fit and cut off relations with Rome. He then set up the Church of England and made himself head of a religion, thus why we have separation of church and state. However we made the same mistake of making what should be a religious institution, a state institution.

Henry VIII’s legacy is damning. Today, marriage has more to do with politicians and lawyers than your local clergy. Marriage has become a joke and vows are ignored. It’s bottom of the barrel nonsense and you know it. The state has taken something good and twisted it into something rotten. I find it poetic that California’s proposition shared a title with the man who destroyed marriage.

Again, I want to put out the idea of Civil Unions for everyone. Let’s give marriage back to church/temple/mosque and let them marry anyone they want. Let politicians and lawyers deal with Civil Unions and leave marriage a sacred religious institution. I want to make it clear that I don’t think people should stay married if they don’t love each other. I am just saying that a priest is more willing to save a marriage than the government, because it is way to easy to get a divorce through the state. They don’t care if you stayed married, because lawyers make too much money on divorce and many politicians are lawyers. Give everyone Civil Unions and let’s be done with it. If the gay community is still up in arms after getting the equal rights they have wanted, then they are just in it to annoy the religious right and we can call them on it.

However, that is not what I came to talk about. I came here to talk about repealing the 17th Amendment (please read this before going forward).


I asked before if the amendment should be repeal, but now I think we should definitely work to repeal this injustice to the United States Constitution and States’ Rights.

Today, state governments are nothing more than glorified lobbying groups trying to get any scraps of power and money from the federal government. Sure we should have a strong central government, but power should come from the bottom up and not the other way around. Senators are elected, sorry, chosen with a popularity contest every six years at a time and not accountable to anyone. The Average Joe doesn’t know what their Senators are doing in those six years, just look at Ted Stevens. The guy would not be re-elected by the Alaskan State Legislature, no matter what kind of pork he brought home. I guarantee you that a person will be elected to the US Senate no more than three times if the 17th is repealed.

You ever watch C-SPAN and see some poor sap get grilled by US Senators? What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. I would love to see them grilled for their actives and laws that they voted for/against. State legislatures are more equipped to hold a fourth of the federal government accountable than we will ever have (think about the $700 Billion Crap Sandwich). State elections will also become more important than they are today.

Zell Miller once said that the 17th Amendment has “allowed Washington’s special interests to call the shots, whether it is filling judicial vacancies, passing laws, or issuing regulations.” If we are really serious about reforming government, let us start with the US Senate. Nowadays, more lobbyist money is spent on the US Senate than any body of government. It is way too easy to focus on corrupting just 100 people. You would need billions to corrupt 50 full state legislatures. Senators also will not need those millions just to get elected/re-elected.

So in closing, repealing the 17th Amendment would do three things for us: (1) give more accountability to the US Senate, (2) give more power to the states, and (3) reform campaign finance. If you disagree, then please, it better be a very good reason as to why more of the same is a good idea.

BigGator5.net

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • mbecker908

    Repealing the 17th would also bring focus onto the 10th in rather quick fashion.

    The problem, just like repealing the 16th to get the FlatTax, is that it won’t happen. Ever. Last time I looked, the US Senate has to approve proposed amendments by a 2/3 majority. Unfortunately, the people who could never achieve the incomes and the power that they have as Senators aren’t about to risk losing it all to a fickle bunch of state legislators.

    Very good idea though.

  • TC_Robinson

    Honestly, any time someone has called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, I’ve scoffed. But dude, your logic is impressive. You’ve definitely convinced me.

  • gclaghorn

    Repealing states’ rights would just put more power in the hands of the federal government.

    State governments tend to know more about the issues close to home and end up dealing with them better than the federal gov’t would.

    • BigGator5

      And I disagree with you. Nothing is inevitable and no law is written in stone.

      • BigGator5

        Umm, were you reading the same thing that I wrote?

        The 17th Amendment is an afront to States’ Rights. Repealing the 17th Amendment would give States more and power over the federal government, a sort of check and balance.

        • BigGator5

          I thank you.

          Just spread the word and let others know about the good things that will come about with the repeal of 17th Amendment.

          • gclaghorn

            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 each 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.

            Sorry. I really don’t see how that’s much of an affront to States’ rights.

          • gclaghorn

            I probably read this sentence wrong.

            I asked if the amendment should be repeal, but now I think we should definitely work to repeal this injustice to the United States Constitution and States’ Rights.

            I thought you meant you wanted to repeal the amendment AND repeal States’ rights. I apologize.

          • scottbomb

            I’ve always believed in term limits for ALL elected officials but repealing the 17th sounds even better. Sadly, neither will never happen, and for the reason. Who’s going to write the bill to repeal it? What politician will vote to threaten his own job? I’m reminded of certain relatives of mine who live conservative lives but vote for the libs because they think their professions depend on having liberals in charge of the federal purse.

          • E_Pluribus_Unum

            I wanted to make sure you knew it.

          • JakePrime

            in NY. Incumbents only lose when they’re dead. That being said, it still removes power from the individual by separating his influence at the national level by another degree. Lobbyists or not, the individual loses power. Term limits would a much better, although highly improbable, solution

          • mbecker908

            I don’t have a “bloody problem”.

            I think this is a good idea, and I’ve repeatedly said so in this diary. I’ve also supported the idea when it was offered at other times.

            What I am trying to do, with absolutely no success, is find somebody, anybody with any kind of reasonable idea about how to accomplish repeal. There are MAJOR hurdles, which you’ve admitted now on two occasions.

            If there is no realistic plan for accomplishing the goal, we are wasting our time with it. As I’ve noted before, “stuff” is about come at us from Capital Hill in a major storm. That’s what we need to be focused on. We have limited resources and limited ability to accomplish anything right now and we have to deal with the highest priority items first. Unless somebody can come up with a reasonable plan for this, it needs to be shelved until some can identify one. Heck, nobody will even talk about how it might be implemented, this whole thread consists of “Yeah! Great idea!”.

            I’m not putting the burden on you to produce a workable plan. I’m just looking for somebody to do it.

          • BigGator5

            You definitly have a problem. I don’t know what it is, and I don’t care at this point.

            I am trying to start a grass-root effort to repeal the 17th Amendment. Add something that can contribute to that effort or step aside and let us start our work.

          • mbecker908

            I just checked. Both “www.repeal17.com” and “www.repeal17.org” are available and can be registered for less than $20.

            Get your blog going, add a link to your signature line here and anywhere else you regularly post. You could also write an article and submit it to some of the other blogs that are represented here like Minority Report.

          • 10ksnooker

            … Has bestowed on America a cadre of 100 slave masters who run the country from the Senate.

            No more Sen Fienstien for life, no more Sen Schumer for life, no more Sen Kennedy for life. What a world that would be.

            The point of having a Senate is that no law can be passed without a majority of the representatives of the states, appointed as representatives of the Governor, having spoken. Having two people’s houses with one more important than the other destroys the Constitutional balance of the original Constitutional structure.

          • AthenaDelphi

            I’ve always thought that there was separation of church and state here in America. Not to the nutty point of taking the 10 commandments out of every place they’ve been in for the past 50 years, renaming certain cities that have a religious makeup to their name, making Christmas almost illegal and taking “In God We Trust” off of money.

            But my marriage was performed by the justice of the peace and then a few months later we had a “religious” wedding for both our respective beliefs.

            The justice of the peace wedding was done by a state official but after that we still had to change all our bank accounts, our life insurance policies, our legal power of attorney paperwork, etc.

            We thought nothing of it. It was a hassle to be sure but that’s what you do when you “get married”, so if you take the church out of the equation and some churches do perform gay weddings, then the state is the only entity that is a road block but gay and lesbian couples can certainly do all the legal stuff we did and have the ceremony and the only difference is they don’t have a “license” for marriage that the state charges upwards of $150 for.

            To my way of thinking its more cost effective to be gay then be heterosexual since they get an extra $150 dollars out of us for the license and then there’s not much difference between a married couple filing joint and indivduals filing seperately, especially if the married couple don’t have children.

            This is one fight that doesn’t need to given energy to. People live together all the time as roommates.

            The only thing that’s a hold up is the term: Marriage.

          • JLenardDetroit

            I’ve been pleading this forever, glad you brought it back up.

            I much prefer having each State’s Legislature deliver the Senators. Think in terms of the “Electoral College” as used to elect a President. The issue is to prevent the “Tyranny of the Majority.” Electoral College in regard to Large vs. Small States power and in terms of Large vs. Small population areas within a State. A question of Popular vote versus consensus coming from Representatives of/from those closest to the people of each District.

            Though, if we are really talking State’s Rights, each State can make up their own minds within it’s State Constitution. A State could then deem THAT STATE shall elect its Senators by popular vote. Though, I’m against it from the “Tyranny of the Majority” standpoint. A mix of the 2, might be a compromise – 1 at large by Statewide ballot and other appointed by State Legislature.

            Michigan’s Legislature is a good example of this. It gets mixed about as demographics change on the local levels. When it comes to Senators and Presidential elections however, the Majority landmass never over-comes just a few large cities that force the State Blue. Michigan has had times of Republican control within the State, yet Liberal Democrat Senators still land up going to Washington.

            Just added food for thought. Didn’t see anyone mention the “Electoral” in intent comparison/angle.

          • JLenardDetroit

          • BigGator5

            You know, some states did that before the 17th Amendment. The Legislatures just rubber stamp the Senator after they won popular vote.

          • Deskpilot

            Gator5

            For the purpose of this worthy discussion, I am providing the text of the Constitution as it was and would be upon a successful campaign.

            ART I SECT II

            The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

            Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

            No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

            The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

            The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

            (More omitted from quote)

            Where this leads us Ladies and Gentlemen, is the the State Legislature would have their say in the Senate.
            The Federalists wanted to make sure that all voices were heard in the National debate. In our democratic Republic’s original plan, We The People would be responsible to elect our representatives, the largest body, and the State Legislature would provide for the choosing of the Senators. That meant the the Senator primary constituency was his home states governmental body. He was essentially the federal representative of the sovereign state which he represented.
            Each of those sovereign states may set the manner of choosing.
            (For a sideline- Alaska provides that in the event of a vacancies, a special election by the people shall be call to chose the replacement. The media is getting it so wrong if they think that Sarah Palin can appoint herself to replace Sen. Stevens. An element of corruption prevention)

            I would love to see the States reaction to this.

            If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can still read it in English, you’re welcome.
            Deskpilot, AM(H)1 (AW), USN(Ret)

          • SunDogII

            the senate is, or is supposed to be, the voice of the states, not he people. The house plays that role. If the senate were looking out for the welfare of the states, then unfunded mandates would cease immediately. Without a voice in the national government, states will eventually become nothing more that administrative units of that government.

          • charliehall

            I live in a county that has more people than eleven states. Why can’t we declare ourselves a state and get two Senators? We have more than double the population of the smallest states. Why should Wyoming have so much influence?

          • DONTREADONME

            If a big city were to succeed from a state and form its own, expect the eastern shore of MD to break away to form its own state. Also big cities do not control a huge amount of property or land. Why should the cities run the private property rights of the people with the farm land. Look to MD to answer these questions.

            The eastern shore of Maryland has always wanted to succeed from the state of MD because the big cities rule the day as far as MD law goes. Gun bans, taxes etc. So the people who own the smallest part of MD can impose upon the land owners of the largest area owned privately. That was the idea of the Senate, do not allow the masses to overwhelm the private property rights of the land owners.

          • JLenardDetroit

            As stated, I much prefer the other (appointment, or election from within State legislatures) manner, but it should be up to each State. I ALWAYS default to a State’s Right!!

            Some mentioned in the thread we would still have career Politicians in the US Senate. YES, but… The trouble here isn’t completely that it is Political retreads that land up in US Senate. Moving an experienced someone UP from a State legislature is not an entirely bad thing. The point (hope) is that it is someone that is well versed in the ISSUES MOST IMPORTANT TO THAT STATE, and that is why they would/should be sent to the Senate – to represent the “concerns of the State.” Less chance, if State legislature understands its duties correctly, of just having a State US House member slide over to a US Senate seat (which defeats the purpose of them being intimately involved DIRECTLY in that States legislative process RECENTLY)!

            Moving up a current (hint, hint, AK), former, or outgoing Governor, not all bad an idea. Rewarding a popular (or more importantly RESPECTED) Politician from the large Pool of Local, County, and State capital representatives (yes, most always going to be someone from within a State legislature) isn’t all bad. This is especially GOOD in any State that does not have a huge majority of one Party over the other (MI is often that way in Lansing MI because of State composition), as you have to have a consensus candidate. This is about the ONLY time you will ever hear (well, see) me advocating “consensus.” States with no super-majority rules (one would/could hope) may mix rep’s, with one D and one R that can/will work together and closely with their HOME STATE legislatures to represent STATE issues – which is the point. The FATE of Super-Majority status in the US Senate would recieve the deliberation it deserves, as part of the discussions of each State legislature as part of any appointment.

            The way we have it now, of course, is Senators being elected from general elections just send the typical pandering fools. The Senator is supposed to answer to the State concerns, not be there just to pander (with handouts and promises direct to the State general public) in order to assure election/re-election. A State legislature appointment provides some SHIELDING/cover from the direct Public pressure (and pander to voters) and the latitude to do what is best for the State as a whole and not only to the vocal majority of the large population centers within a State that they know will push them back to the US Senate.

            I think people are missing that entirely.

            The US Senate is supposed to be an entirely different deliberative body from the US House. Popular vote Senators lowered that bar. IMO

            Remember… The founding Fathers understood there are things far too important to leave up to the “tyranny of the majority” which is why we are a Representative Republic, NOT A STRAIGHT DEMOCRACY!!! Why we have to continue to remind people of that is beyond me, and why they can’t understand the how/why that applies here escapes me. There are far too many FOOLS that will allow themselves to be talked into just about anything, like…. “YES WE CAN!” <– need I say more???

          • JLenardDetroit

            he made my point… He doesn’t grasp the Founders concepts.

            We have the same concerns on a County scale here near Detroit. Southern part of Wayne county is SICK AND TIRED of being raped and pillaged in the name of funneling endless sums of money into Detroit. Several times movements began to form a NEW COUNTY in the State, which I support. Probably true of MANY Counties with a huge population center in it. Likewise, MI has the same issue (as I pointed out elsewhere in these discussions) with Detroit, Flint, Lansing, Port Huron, all FORCING its Politics/Will upon the rest of the State.

            Other Diaries have covered this problem. Where people MOVE OUT of an area because of crime, huge tax burdens, bad schools, etc… and yet VOTE THE SAME DUMB WAY that lands up eventually instituting LIBERALS that impose the same Failed policies they were escaping from. DUH!!! The composition of a State, at the State legislature, then tips and an entire State gets that over-spending and high-taxes management.

          • 1SGinTN

            with you about repeal of the 17th Amendment. The 17th is another instrument to undermine the 10th. mbecker908′s practical considerations aside, I can get on board an effort to repeal. Someone upthread brought up the issue concerning constitutionality of the 17th, how practical is that avenue of attack?

  • DC71

    You want to take away an individual’s ability to elect their representative in the Senate and give it to state politicians to decide? I’m sorry, but I still have faith in the American public to choose their own representatives, at any level. If you don’t trust the masses ability to choose their leadership, I can think of a few counties that you would like.

    I live in Washington, DC. I know what it’s like to not be able to choose your legislators and have it dictated by others. I don’t understand actually wanting to give up your freedom to vote and claim it would make Senators more accountable. You think state politicians are more likely to hold their brethren accountable then you are? I would never pass the buck on to a politician to decide who represents me.

    • mbecker908
      • BigGator5

        You want to take away an individual’s ability to elect their representative in the Senate and give it to state politicians to decide? I’m sorry, but I still have faith in the American public to choose their own representatives…

        That is why we have the US House Of Representatives. They are re-elected every two years and have to answer to a smaller group of people.

        However once you give people six years in office and much more power, there has to be a greater sense of accountability. I can’t sit down a US Senator and ask him what he has been doing for the last six years.

  • JakePrime

    I understand that this would decrease the influence of lobbyists. That’s great. It would also increase the power and oversight of the states, also great. The problem is that this power is taken, not from the federal government, but at the expense of the people. The people have a greater right to select who represents them than the state legislature. Our senators should not be selected as other countries select prime ministers. State legislators do not know what is best for me.

  • Tamblin

    So long as marriage remains part of the legal code the government has to be involved in defining it. That’s sub-optimal. Better to make marriage a purely religious rite (defined however each religion wishes for its own purposes) with no power of law whatsoever.

    Then put in place a legal arrangement (or series of arrangements) that provide legal power of attorney, rights in case of hospitalization, inheritance in case of death without a will, etc. These civil contracts could then be entered into by any consenting adults.

    • mbecker908

      When the Constitution was written the House of Representatives was designed to be the “representative of the people”. Hence the two year terms, representation proportional to population and direct election.

      The Senate, OTOH, was designed to be a “check” on the powers of the federal government, which the framers understood would seduce even the strongest of men (save G. Washington) if left unchecked. Hence, appointment by the state legislatures. The whole point of the appointment process was to insure that the states had a direct voice in Washington (Philadelphia actually) and that they would have representation to stop the federal government from stripping away the powers inherent to the states.

      The 17th Amendment was passed and federalism died a violent death. The federal government grew unchecked and the 10th Amendment was quickly forgotten.

      • Menlo

        EVER seeing a Constitutional amendment in any of our lifetimes.

        For that matter, good luck ever seeing the current Constitution followed.

        • BigGator5

          Then put in place a legal arrangement (or series of arrangements) that provide legal power of attorney, rights in case of hospitalization, inheritance in case of death without a will, etc. These civil contracts could then be entered into by any consenting adults.

          Umm, we can just boil that down to Civil Union.

          • JakePrime

            I’ve advocated that argument as well. The only real problem is handling the multitude of state laws that specifically deal with marriage and redefining them for civil unions. Still, I don’t really see this as a big obstacle.

          • BigGator5

            Step One: Awareness. Make people aware that there is a better choice.

            Step Two: Grass-Root. Start a grass-root effort. This goes hand-in-hand with Step One.

            Step Three: Win Over Key Lawmakers. Ok, you are not going to win over the Senate itself. However you target The House and the States, maybe even the President. We can even shoot to put this on Republican Party platform.

            Step Four: Pass Amendment Repealing 17th Amendment. I know this might take some time, but “lost causes” are the ones to fight for. Mr. Smith taught me that much.

          • DONTREADONME

            D.C. is one of those strange places in the U.S. There is a very good reason why the seat of the Federal Government is not under the jurisdiction of the State of the District of Columbia.

            Here is my simple look on the issue of the 17th Amendment…

            If you look at the original purpose of the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives was to allow an amount of people to elect their representatives at the district levels within the States based on population. Now the Senate was established to equate the states not based on population but rather on statehood.

            In the Senate, small populace states like R.I. have just as much power as the large states like New York. That is why when you look at the Electoral College it kind of weighs votes in R.I. to be much greater then the votes in California. You could say that a vote in California is equal to 1 and a vote in R.I. is something >1.

            If you give power to the people of the State to directly elect their Senators; you have defeated the original purpose. All you have is 2 super representatives that require a vote over the whole state rather than selected by representatives of people at local levels.

            Elected representatives to the state Government would be the ones chosen to represent the State not necessarily the people in the Senate.

            The people in the state, since the power to elect these officials who appoint the senators were on the very local (county, city, town etc) level allowed for better representation of the State in the U.S.

            I agree 100% with the idea that the 17th Amendment made the States branch offices of the Federal Government; however, I do agree with someone elses assessment on this board that the 17th Amendment will never be repealed by another Amendment.

            If we take a card from the liberal playbook, maybe one day the Supreme Legislature Court of Polical Activism will decide that this amendment does not mean what it says.

          • gamecock

            Gator, at no point did you spell out the choice: direct election of senators vs indirect election by State legislatures. (Yes, I saw the link, but come on man, at least state the choice.)

            Wish you would comment on what your research shows as the reason why it was better before, esp in the context of modern interstate commerce. I generally agree with you, but need more info and issues that are implicated.

            Plus, what are the arguments we can make to the democracy obsessed mob rule crowd that they are better off with their state having more power.

            Americans since the civil war and esp after WWII see the US as one big state.

            Your idea seems to tie in with the big federalism column I am writing now.

            As to civil unions, well, I favor them (if a state desires) for any two persons, without regard to sexual orientation, so long as the traditional definition of marriage is preserved.

            I do favor allowing states to decide marriage law.

            I disagree with you about restricting marriage to churches. Common Law marriage and civil marriage arose centuries ago for the secular and as a matter of convenience for the rural.

            Secular society has a vital interest in promoting THE institution that made civilization possible.

            more later

          • mbecker908

            My point exactly. Check out Article V of the Constitution. There are two ways to amend the constitution and only one has ever been used.

            The second is a Constitutional Convention that essentially rewrites the Constitution. Never been tried, requires 3/4 approval on the new Constitution and would be a nightmare on Elm Street given that EVERY group with an axe to grind would show up and the new Constitution would likely be as long as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

            The way the Constitution has been amended in the past, and the only way it’ll ever happen is thus:

            • The Amendment is approved by 2/3 of the Members of the House of Representatives;

            • The Amendment is approved by 2/3 of the Members of the US Senate;

            • The Amendment is approved by 3/4 of the legislatures of the various states.

            There are 415 Members of the House of Representatives, that’s 277 Aye votes.
            There are 50 US Senators, that’s 67 Aye votes.

            There are 50 States, that’s 38 State Legislatures voting Aye.

            I suppose you construct a scenario that would get you 277 votes in the House. I further suppose that you could get 38 Legislatures to vote Aye, given that the Amendment would be in their best interest.

            I can’t construct a scenario, and doubt if I could in my drinking days, that would conceivably get you 67 votes in the US Senate. And, no 67 Senate votes, no Amendment.

            Now, back to reality…
            Note that the President is not mentioned in the process.

          • BigGator5

            There was a theme to this entire article, is that it hasn’t work. State Run Marriage and the 17th Amendment, they have backfire completely.

            I thought I outline very nicely how since Henry VIII made marriage a state-run institution, it has gone down hill. Now there are some people who take marriage seriously, but they have become the minority. I mean, really, marriage has already become Civil Unions. As a lawyer yourself, you must know marriage today has nothing to do with religion, why the pretense? I ask you, other than giving married couples a tax break, what has the government done to promote and keep people in the institution of marriage?

            As I outline in my last entry (which I linked), the 17th Amendment was ment to end corruption. Well, that didn’t work! Not only are they more corrupt, but they themselves do not have a lot of accountability to anyone. I have never said it was better before, but things need to change.

            So things haven’t work. When a new tool hasn’t work, you go back to the old tool until maybe someone with better idea comes along.

          • mbecker908

            There is no way in hell the 17th Amendment is getting repealed, at least in this century. See here for the short course in “why”.

            As to your hurt feelings about my opinion of DC residents, get over it. As a group, you don’t live in anything even closely resembling the “real world”, any more than the residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts do. Oh, and just so we’re clear, I don’t give a tinkers dam about your little feelings.

          • DC71

            You’re one of those “real” vs “fake” American people. Listen, if you think throwing out insults is the proper manner of exchanging ideas, good luck having anyone take you seriously. I tried to actually have a discussion with you. Turns out you’re a joke and I wasted my time. Won’t make that mistake again. Good luck with your “hypothetical arguments.” You’re doing a bang up job.

          • dglenn

            If both the House and State legislatures were to repeal the 17th amendment, wouldn’t there be significant political pressure for the senate to pass it as well?

          • mbecker908

            The problem would be that it only takes 33 Senators to block an Amendment. I can pretty well guarantee you that there are more than 33 US Senators who could get caught with a live boy or a dead girl (see Ted Kennedy) and get reelected and I have a hard time seeing any of them getting tossed over this one. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

            I also don’t think that you could manage 2/3 of the House, given that House Members drink the same polluted water as Senators. They all have the same father, the Power of the Federal Government. Given that this would – hopefully – reduce the inherent power of the fed, I don’t see the House jumping on the band wagon.

            Finally, I think this is a really hard sell to an ignorant electorate. It’s a very complicated case to make – although I heartily agree it should be done – and the current electorate has the attention span and intellect of a fruit fly. (See Nov 4, 2008)

            I would very much like to be wrong, but I think this is a waste of time. Kind of like FairTax, for all the same reasons.

          • civil_truth

            I wrote a post for RedState some months back (in the 2.0 era, I think) advocating repeal, so you’ll find me in firm agreement.

            Interestingly, I began thinking about the 17th Amendment again following Obama’s election and the threat of increasing Federal power. What’s became more clear to me this time around was that having the states appoint senators would add an additional “check and balance” by giving the states a direct voice that they currently lack due to popular election.

            Repealing it was a body blow to states’ rights and an open door to Federalization, although we didn’t really see the first fruit of that until Roosevelt. Now we may reap the harvest.

            Unfortunately, I see no chance of an amendment without a Constitutional Convention, and in the present climate, a Convention would more likely be an invitation to dictatorship rather than returning powers to the States.

            Great minds…

        • DONTREADONME

          NT

          • DC71

            I understand your argument about the intentions of the founding fathers and federalism. I just disagree. If you aren’t vigilant enough to keep your own legislators in check, then you aren’t acting as a responsible citizen. You are the oversight. If you think your member is corrupt, it’s up to you to work to throw the bum out. Work on a campaign yourself, donate money, run for office. There are a ton of things you can do. I’ll take participatory democracy over putting all my faith in state legislators (all but one I did not vote for) to make decisions for me.

            It’s not solely the state legislatures job to protect the rights of the state, but the citizenry of the state has the responsibility to do that as well. And they can do it by exercising the right to vote for candidates they feel represent their beliefs about what the role of the federal government is. You talk about federalism as if a state is an entity all to itself with its own interests. A state is only a collection of its inhabitants, and it is those inhabitants who have the power to choose the representation that they feel represents their interests, not that of a state government. I don’t see the need for an intermediary in the selection process. What you are arguing sounds a little too much like a Confederacy for my taste.

            Also, I don’t see how you get state reps keeping lobbyists away. Lobbyists would still keep funneling money to the Senators through their PACs. The money from those PACs would then go funding the state reps races. That’s how politics works here. Sad but true. You ban that practice, they’ll start funneling money straight to state rep’s races. If you really think that lobbying would just end, and that the lobbyists wouldn’t find ways to funnel money to other races to help keep their people in office, you are woefully naive. If you think that your State Rep. is beyond this, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Money is important in politics, and candidates with the most generally win. The only thing that prevents corruption is an active citizenry, not government officials.

            Oh, little side note. Throwing out insults about DC residents in your answer doesn’t really prove your point. It just makes you look childish.

          • mobius2702

            State legislators do not know what is best for me.

            Then you can elect a new state legislator and tell them to not name that person senator again.

            Look at MN, AK, and determine what the will of the people is this year.

          • Tamblin

            I’m just saying there’s a number of ways you could do it. You could take all the rights currently granted by marriage and role those into a civil union contract. Better, I think, would e to separate the different rights out so you could pick and choose which aspects of a civil union you were entering with a given person.

          • seattle_ite

            I pay attention, as much as possible, to what happens in the Senate, and with my two Senators. The current wisdom is that Cantwell bought her seat, and Murray is in full control of her seat, despite all the groaning about those two that I hear from my circle of associates. They are out of touch, and don’t care about representing the minority view, as long as their loyal following keeps voting them in.

            Granted, we have a very left-leaning Leg., here in Olympia, which would probably rubberstamp the ‘choice’ of Murray and Cantwell, but the appointments would force the money out of the equation.

            Besides, we proved with Prohibition that bad law should be excised. A six year term gives the Senator more time, in a less raucous forum, to give ‘nuance’ to their positions. Smith, here in the 9th, is a mod Dem, careful enough in his public stances to keep the seat since ’96. He’s not my guy, but someone I can live with. His interest does indeed seem to be on the service side, rather than self-promotion. But he is very aware that every term could be his last, and those terms are 2 years. I’d like to think that is why he’s kept as honest as possible (for a politician).

            Gator’s idea might be worth looking into; at least, if the Senate caught wind that serious people were talking about it, might rein them in a bit.

          • dvdmsr

            “If we take a card from the liberal playbook, maybe one day the Supreme Legislature Court of Polical Activism will decide that this amendment does not mean what it says.”

            Maybe the Supremes could find that the 17th violates the last line of the 5th article of the Constitution. You know that part that says that the Const. can be amended provided that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffurage in the Senate.

      • E_Pluribus_Unum

        The temperature of Hades must be dropping precipitously near 32 degrees.

        • CFPeterson

          Lets just get term limits passed… That accomplishes nearly the same thing as repealing the 17th.

  • Crippy

    post! 1913 was a bad year for the Constitution, the American people, and liberty in general. Along with the 17th amendment, the 16th amendment was also ratified.

    -Crippy

    • Hakononaka

      Obviously repealing the 17th would bring some big benefits. Unfortunately I’m afraid it would bring some problems as well. Appointment by state legislature would promote factions, and appointment to the Senate would often go to the one who’s done the most favors and been the most loyal to a certain faction, rather than who would really serve best. That’s how to tends to work in countries where parliament chooses the prime minister. Essentially the Senate turns into the ultimate old boys club. Which is exactly as it was intended by the framers, but I’m not sure if that’s a virtue anymore in today’s world.

      And if your party doesn’t hold the majority in the state legislature, forget about it. No balance of power.

      I’m not against the idea, I’m just not sold yet.

      • Canthros

        It would really have to get to the point that the constituents would rather vote the incumbents out than retain the 17th Amendment, I think.

        I’m not sure I see that happening without a cultural sea change. Not impossible, but very unlikely.

        • BigGator5

          The Old Boys Club, as you call it, is already there.

          Just look at Ted Stevens. He was convicted of corruption and he wasn’t going to step down. It even look like the Alaskan people would re-elect him. Now there is a Democrat in his place and we have to wait six long years before we can get rid of him. If the Alaskan Legislature was in charged of that US Senate seat, they would have most likely replaced him with another Republican. Instead the 17th Amendment have given us two very bad choices.

          Sure the state legislatures would promote from within. I say that is a good thing, because they have already serve with honor for their constituents. Along with an increase in accountiblity, this will make local and state elections more important.

          It’s an imperfect solution, I’ll give you that one. There is plenty room for corruption even if we repeal the 17th Amendment. However at least it’s an idea that gives us better accountiblity of our out-of-control federal grovenment.

  • Canthros

    Unfortunately, I’m not sure that repealing it will totally solve the problem.

    The Constitution doesn’t, IIRC, explicitly provide for state governments to appoint Senators, only for each state to appoint their Senator as they wish. At the time the 17th Amendment was passed, states were already moving to popular election of US Senators. I don’t really think this movement would change if you could get the 17th repealed.

    If nothing else, there are still rather studious proponents of direct democracy (appropriately, many of them are Democrats, though I feel reasonably certain that there are a large number of them hiding out among the political center and Republican populists) who would probably push for total governance by plebiscite, given the opportunity. You might remember them from all the (admittedly, mostly partisan) howling about the failure of the electoral college in 2000-2004.

    Still, while we’re repealing the 17th Amendment, we should expand the size of the House of Representatives.

    • BigGator5

      Actually, the Senate was always thought of as the “higher house”. Federal Judges and the Cabinet (as well as other high executive branch appointments) must be appoved by the Senate, and rightly so.

      But being the higher house and longer terms, they needed more accountiblity and thus why they answered to state legislatures. The 17th Amendment took that power away from the state and it was a bad idea.

      • BigGator5

        I agree with you. However we should give the states the power to choose like the framers wanted.

        However if we can repeal the 17th Amendment, it will tell you that 2/3rds of the nation is ready for a change in what we already have.

  • freedomofthought

    Part of the problem is the poor education of most people concerning
    the fact that this is a democratic REPUBLIC and what that means and the justification of it in the founders logic. This is compounded by the
    constant reference (sometimes sloppily and somethimes on purpose) to our goverment as being a DEMOCRACY.. It is not, tho’ the concept behind it promotes a controlled, checked & balanced largely democratic structure. This is ignored by the politicians who constantly refer to our “democracy” because it sounds patriotic. But it does disservice to the public at large.

    A good example for the need of the bicameral legislature we have
    is Alaska. Based on population Alaska would not have a lot of control over ITSELF. The rest of the country at large would have total control over those folks and the vast, vast resources they own and control. They would basically be plundered. Similarly our states that produce food in the midwest. The city-folk in the country could totally over-ride their best interests. The House on the otherhand IS constructed to balance that with what is good for the country as a simple single entity with each “state” represented proportionally.

    This is part of the system of checks and balances.
    where the rest is the separation of legislature, judicial & administration each watching or restricting one another.

    Changing this would provide a true democracy — which our founders rightly assessed as leading to chaos. Further it would give to those who knew NOTHING about the trials and tribulations of smaller groups of people (e.g. farmers) total control over how they lived and to run their businesses for them,

    Sort of like the govt taking over car companies, banks and healthcare —- NO ?????

    Another view: Should a bunch of city dwellers (largely) who have access to good roads and piped in natural gas be able to tell a person living way out the backwoods of Alaska, VT or Utah that he could not own an SUV or 4wd vehicle to travel nor burn wood to heat his home because they deem it bad for his and their environment???? I think not.

    I too believe that the 17th should be abolished. It is leading us in the wrong direction,.

  • Uma_Richie

    BigGator, it frustrates me to no end that the states are not holding the US Congress accountable. If the state legislatures were more proactive, a 17th amendment repeal might not be needed.

    Here is an excerpt from the response to a letter that I sent to my state rep about keeping our congressional delegation in check:

    I feel we must fix our problems here before we as a state tell the feds how to govern themselves.

    The jist of the rest of his response was that PACs are to blame and that he doesn’t accept PAC money. Sigh!

    (By the way, I liked the timeliness of your diary…Just watched the movie and found my sig line quote in the process.)

  • mbecker908

    Heck, I think it’s a great idea.

    There’s just a teeny problem that needs to be addressed. In order to amend the Constitution we either have a Constitutional Convention, which would open Pandora’s box and nobody will make a case for that (except on kos), or 2/3 of the Senate and House and 3/4 of the State legislatures need to approve the amendment.

    Somebody commented that the 17th looks like it’s “unconstitutional” for some reason or another but that’s a DOA argument. The 17th Amendment is black letter law. Heck, SCOTUS has problems overturning crap that previous courts made up (Roe), they wouldn’t get with a million miles of that argument. You can lump that one in the same can with the arguments about the 16th Amendment being “unconstitutional” for one reason or another.

    Now, back to the real world. You’ve gotta find 67 US Senators who would vote for this, not to mention 2/3 of the House. You can probably sell 3/4 of the State Legislatures on the deal.

    Members of the House and Senate are, even above being members of a political party, members of the Ruling Elite. First and foremost, they belong to the Party of Permanent Government. I need go no further than our most recent Presidential nominee and his closest friends like Lindsey Graham to press that point.

    Nobody has, so far, even tried to convince me that they can be pressured to vote for repeal of the 17th. When I broached this upthread, even BG5 responded

    Win Over Key Lawmakers. Ok, you are not going to win over the Senate itself. However you target The House and the States, maybe even the President. We can even shoot to put this on Republican Party platform.

    I didn’t respond upthread, but I will here.

    • 1: “…you aren’t going to win over the Senate itself.” That’s my point folks. And guess what? You have to!

    • 2: “…target the House and the States.” See my comments on Permanent Government, above, relative to the House. And, I’ve seen no strategy to target House Members. As far as targeting the States, that might have some merit, but you still have to get House and Senate Members on board. In the history of amending the Constitution, getting a House and Senate vote can happen relatively quickly. Getting the 50 State Legislatures to act takes years.

    • 3: Target the President. Yeah right. Let’s see. Who votes to approve all individuals nominated to the Courts and to high level political appointments? Oh yeah, it’s the US Senate! There’s not a politician still breathing who’s stupid enough to sign onto that agenda.

    • 4: Put it in the Republican Platform. We’d do better to hire inner city gang members and have them tag walls with “Repeal 17″. The Platform is a cast off exercise and has been since day one. There is nothing about the Platform that provides either strategic or tactical methods to get something done.

    One final hurdle. Selling the idea to the American People. Look, while I would love to see this happen, we’ve got to admit that the case for repeal is not quick or easy to explain and in many ways the arguments for repeal are pretty arcane. Their right, but their complex and arcane. Folks, the electorate isn’t going to spend 30 seconds on trying to figure this out. Especially when every Senator and Representative is against it. And then there’s the media. This will get played as a “naked power grab” by far right trying to control “The World’s Greatest Deliberative Body”.

    Bottom line guys, this is a great idea. The 17th Amendment is a terrible idea that has wreaked havoc on the country. But there is no way on God’s green earth that it’s ever going to get repealed.

    Now then, I’ve provided some specific reasons why it won’t happen. While you line up and tell me I’m a nattering nabob of doom and I have no faith in the electorate, please provide something stronger than the arguments above. We have limited capital in the political realm these days. Lets not waste it on nice sounding stuff that will never happen.

  • BigGator5

    Dude, we might agree on most things. That is what makes us Republicans. I’m just passionate about what I write.

  • BigGator5

    All joking aside, you are right. There is a huge uphill fight to repeal the 17th Amendment. The odds are stacked against us.

    However you never get anywhere by giving up or not even trying. A wise man once said:

    “One may walk over the highest mountain one step at a time.” -John Wanamaker

    One must start somewhere, let’s start today.

  • mbecker908

    Still no strategy.

    And, realistically, we are facing an avalanche of Marxist legislation coming down from Capitol Hill in the next six or seven months. Not to mention we have a Party that doesn’t have a clue what it stands for (see John McCain/Lindsey Graham/Barack Obama over the last couple of days).

    We don’t have the time, the energy or the political capital to be messing with this. This isn’t a losing battle, it’s a non-starter.

    Again, I’m in favor of it. But nobody’s been able to even show me a bad plan that will get this off the starting line.

  • BigGator5

    Ok, enough dude. You have made your case. I don’t have a plan. No one has a plan. We’re all bloody planless.

    Are you done yet?

  • BigGator5

    In fact, you started yet another comment thread just to shove the fact I don’t have a plan down my throat. I’m starting to get pissed off here.

    What is you bloody problem?