The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Right_in_Virginia on November 18, 2017, 04:27:47 am
-
To Avoid Debacles Like Roy Moore, Repeal The 17th Amendment
The Federalist, Nov 16, 2017, Daniel Davidson
<snip>
The idea that state legislatures would elect senators might seem odd nowadays, but creating some distance between the popular vote and the election of senators was crucial to the Founders’ grand design for the republic. The original idea, spelled out in The Federalist Papers, was that the people would be represented in the House of Representatives and the states would be represented in the Senate. Seats in the House were therefore apportioned according to population while every state, no matter how large its populace, got two seats in the Senate.
The larger concept behind this difference was that Congress needed to be both national and federal in order to reflect not just the sovereignty of the people but also the sovereignty of the states against the federal government. In Federalist No. 62, James Madison explained that Congress shouldn’t pass laws “without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then of a majority of the states.”
Besides tempering the passions of the electorate, empowering state legislatures to elect senators was meant to protect the states from the encroachments of the federal government. The tension was (and still is) between the dual sovereignty of the national government and the states. Writing in Federalist No. 39, Madison explains that while the House of Representatives is national because it “will derive its powers from the people of America,” the Senate “will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies.” We’ve lost much of this today, but the jurisdiction of the federal government, wrote Madison, “extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.”
More: http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/16/avoid-debacles-like-roy-moore-repeal-17th-amendment/
-
He is not writing this in support of Moore. Nonetheless, he makes a strong case for the logic behind the Founders' original intent.
If I had my druthers, repeal of the 17th amendment would include term limits for US Senators. But I'd settle for just the repeal.
-
Madison was correct. The 17th Amendment has done more to destroy the Republic than any other.
-
Interest in your thoughts @Bigun
-
Interest in your thoughts @Bigun
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,291052.msg1514696.html#msg1514696 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,291052.msg1514696.html#msg1514696)
-
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,291052.msg1514696.html#msg1514696 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,291052.msg1514696.html#msg1514696)
Thanks @Hoodat
-
The probability of doing this in our lifetimes approaches zero.
Is there even a credible effort underway?
-
Interest in your thoughts @Bigun
@Right_in_Virginia @IsailedawayfromFR
I could write a long treatise on this subject but will refrain and just say this instead. Our government was designed by brilliant men who were well schooled in the history of governments on this planet. They designed our government like a three-legged stool and, IMHO, the 17th amendment sawed one of the legs of that stool off by removing one of the essential elements (the states) from the equation in Washington. We have seen the result. Next to getting rid of the Marxist income tax, I can think of nothing that would go further toward getting us back to where we should be than repealing the 17th!
Here's a link to an article on the subject Doug Patton (May he rest in peace) wrote back in 2010 that I agree with almost entirely.
http://canadafreepress.com/print_friendly/the-17th-amendment-was-a-very-bad-idea
-
The probability of doing this in our lifetimes approaches zero.
Is there even a credible effort underway?
@truth_seeker
It comes up in every discussion of the Convention of the States movement that I have been privy to.
-
He is not writing this in support of Moore. Nonetheless, he makes a strong case for the logic behind the Founders' original intent.
If I had my druthers, repeal of the 17th amendment would include term limits for US Senators. But I'd settle for just the repeal.
The distractingly sad part is that he uses "national" and 'Federal" interchangeably when referring to government. **nononono*
Sadly, a subtle, but important difference has been missed.
-
The probability of doing this in our lifetimes approaches zero.
Is there even a credible effort underway?m
No, because the closest you’d get to it was after the last election. After the inauguration, you had Republican House, Senate, and White House control. On top of that, 32 legislatures were in their majority. You’d need to flip one of the handful of split states, with AK probably being the best chance. There haven’t been any serious discussions about it.
-
Truth seeker wrote:
"The probability of doing this in our lifetimes approaches zero."
The probability IS "0".
Ain't happenin', not in our lifetimes, not ever.
Once more, Fishrrman's credo:
Reality is what it is. It is not what we believe it to be.
Having said that, what -could- happen is an amendment that did the following:
1. Established term limits for Senators and Congressmen (and perhaps federal judges as well), and...
2. Established a "right of recall" for the states to have statewide votes to recall Senators and Congressmen.
But eliminate the popular vote amendment for Senators?
That will happen ... right after we repeal the 19th Amendment... ;)
-
In light of all of the cronyism in today's partisan politics, a straight repeal would not like work, just as our direct elections don't. Maybe a modified approach were a non-partisan primary is held by direct election and state legislatures must select from the top four vote getters. Not perfect, but better than what we have now. In addition, the state should have a right to recall their senator.