Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment

[PatrickHenry]

In my opinion, the Amendment to change the constitution regarding the election of senators has thrown the government system of the US out of balance.

A 2004 resolution called the rationale for the direct election of Senators into question.

An article by DiLorenzo: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo93.html

The Seventeenth Amendment was one of the last nails to be pounded into the coffin of federalism in America. The citizens of the states, through their state legislators, could no longer place any roadblocks whatsoever in the way of federal power. The Sixteenth Amendment, which enacted the income tax in the same year, implicitly assumed that the federal government lays claim to all income, and that citizens would be allowed to keep whatever their rulers in Washington, D.C. decided they could keep by setting the tax rates. From that point on, the states were only mere appendages or franchises of the central government. The federal government finally became a pure monopoly and citizen sovereignty became a dead letter. Further arming itself with the powers of legal counterfeiting (the Fed) in the same year, the federal government could ignore the wishes of great majority of the citizens with reckless and disastrous abandon, as it did with its entry into World War I just a few years later. If Americans ever again become interested in living in a free society, one of their first orders of business should be the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment.

This group advocates repeal: http://www.articlev.com/repeal17.htm

In my opinion, federalism is a scourge. Restraining it is the price of freedom. A return to the balance between the Feds and the States is essential to preserving a Republic, which has entered on the way of transformation into Empire.

Also useful to this effort would be repealing the Sixteenth.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: PatrickHenry In my opinion, the Amendment to change the constitution regarding the election of senators has thrown the government system of the US out of balance. A 2004 resolution called the rationale for the direct election of Senators into question. An article by DiLorenzo: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo93.html This group advocates repeal: http://www.articlev.com/repeal17.htm In my opinion, federalism is a scourge. Restraining it is the price of freedom. A return to the balance between the Feds and the States is essential to preserving a Republic, which has entered on the way of transformation into Empire. Also useful to this effort would be repealing the Sixteenth.

Well, I agree, but for a different reason - The Senate was originally supposed to be the "higher" house of Congress. More contemplative, less political, and more responsive to the state bodies that sent them there.

By providing for direct election we have turned them into simply the House with more constituents.

[Apeman81]

I'd go along with that idea. I'm not so sure that having already opened Pandora's box, we have the abilty of stuffing everything back inside it, but it's worth a try.

The sovereignty of the several states could use the exercise. the real trouble will begin when an apathetic electorate no longer has the federal teat to latch on to. Perhaps then they will choose to learn basic economics such that they may recognize that what the media calls a tax cut (a reduction in the rate of taxation) does not equate to a reduction in revenues collected overall.

Heck! They may even learn that the Federal government isn't entitled to dip so deeply within their pockets.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: tivodan1116 ... By providing for direct election we have turned them into simply the House with more constituents.

Thanks for responding quickly, tivodan.

John Dean has written concerning this issue, too. (Dean was arguably the only one in Nixon's group with a conscience.) http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20020913.html

Divisions of power are rooted in our Constitution. Experience had taught the Framers the dangers of concentrations of ruling authority, resulting in their ingenious template of checks and balances, with divisions and distributions of power. Ultimate power in a democracy resides with the people. We are not a pure democracy, however, but rather a confederated republic (one that features, as well, county and local political subdivisions). Thus, while there is national sovereignty, there is also state sovereignty. Power has been so divided and spread for one reason: to provide for and protect the highest sovereignty - that of each individual citizen. Only fools reject the wisdom of this founding principle of defusing power. Yet from the outset there has been debate regarding the appropriate allocation and balancing of these powers. The debate has focussed on not only whether a particular matter should be dealt with at the state versus the national level, but also on how these allocations are adjusted from time to time. <snip> James Madison was not only involved in structuring the system, but was also a keeper of its contemporaneous record. He explained in Federalist No. 10 the reason for bicameralism: "Before taking effect, legislation would have to be ratified by two independent power sources: the people's representatives in the House and the state legislatures' agents in the Senate." The need for two powers to concur would, in turn, thwart the influence of special interests, and by satisfying two very different constituencies, would assure the enactment was for the greatest public good. Madison summed up the concept nicely in Federalist No 51: In republican government, the legislative authority, necessarily predominate. The remedy for this inconveniency is, to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them by different modes of election, and different principles of action, as little connected with each other, as the nature of their common functions and their common dependencies on the society, will admit. The system as designed by the Framers was in place for a century and a quarter, from 1789 until 1913, when the Seventeenth Amendment was adopted. As originally designed, the Framers' system both protected federalism and ensured that relatively few benefits would be provided to special interests. <snip> Professor Zywicki offers an explanation for the Amendment's enactment that makes much more sense. He contends that the true backers of the Seventeenth Amendment were special interests, which had had great difficultly influencing the system when state legislatures controlled the Senate. (Recall that it had been set up by the Framers precisely to thwart them.) They hoped direct elections would increase their control, since they would let them appeal directly to the electorate, as well as provide their essential political fuel - money. This explanation troubles many. However, as Zywicki observes, "[a]thought some might find this reality 'distasteful,' that does not make it any less accurate." <snip> Repeal of the amendment would restore both federalism and bicameralism. It would also have a dramatic and positive effect on campaign spending. Senate races are currently among the most expensive. But if state legislatures were the focus of campaigns, more candidates might get more access with less money - decidedly a good thing. Returning selection of Senators to state legislatures might be a cause that could attract both modern progressive and conservatives. For conservatives, obviously, it would be a return to the system envisioned by the Framers. For progressives - who now must appreciate that direct elections have only enhanced the ability of special interests to influence the process - returning to the diffusion of power inherent in federalism and bicameralism may seem an attractive alternative, or complement, to campaign finance reform. Profession Zywicki likes this idea as well, but is probably right in finding repeal unlikely. He comments - and I believe he's got it right -- "Absent a change of heart in the American populace and a better understanding of the beneficial role played by limitations on direct democracy, it is difficult to imagine a movement to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment."

[bishop]

maybe we can replace it with a balanced budget amendment?