Thursday, June 08, 2006

Repeal the 17th Amendment Discussion Board

I have started a new discussion board on Yahoo called “Repeal the 17th Amendment.” The hope is that through information sharing and dialog we can bringing together a solid group people nation-wide that can educate our state officials, but most of all, the citizenry of the United States on the terrible turn this country took when the populist movement instigated the adoption of the 17th Amendment. The site will be moderated and discussion will be restricted to the issue.

Initially it should be expected that there won’t be a volumes of information being passed back and forth, but the key will be enrolling a network of people through out the U.S. that can spread the message.

I hope you will consider this group and help return the balance of power as set forth in the original Constitution as crafted by the Founding Fathers. The Founding Father knew the balance was indispensable for the stability of the country and the how the ills of democracy would destroy the Republic. We must educate our neighbors; we must end the populist manipulation of the Constitution; and we must return control of the Senate to the States.

Repeal the 17th Amendment Discussion Board

Update: Comments are closed for this posting.


Unknown said...

So... why is it the 17th needs to be repealed? I don't think I caught that.

Gerry said...

I spoke with two state legislators this morning and both of them said they would be willing to sponsor legislation calling for the repeal of the 17th Amendment in our state legislature. Is there sample legislation already written by anyone or any group advocating for the repeal?

Anonymous said...

The need to repeal the 17th amendment stems from the vulnerability of United States Senators to the corruptible practices of lobbyists. Consider the following: One well heeled lobbyist can change the direction of the country through bribing 51 Senators. Most of these bribes take the form of campaign contributions, but, as we have seen, can also include other favors. By repealing the 17th amendment, this same lobbyist would be faced with the task of having to bribe 3,763 people to get the same result. So, think of the repeal of the 17th amendment as protection for the American people.

Brian said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

It is true 51 are easily reached by special interests: 3,763 not so much. We the People have little access and no influence with our Senators. The town meetings made that painfully clear. Worse yet, the States don't either. The Governors will have to administrate much of Obamacare, but they had no part in advice and consent. If you think Repealing the 17th would help and want to sign a national petition go to:

Anonymous said...

I think we should not only appeal the 17th amendment but also get back to some other original intent such as requiring the ownership of property or paying taxes to be enfranchised to vote.

It's time we disenfranchised parasites.

Doug said...

There has been some more talk recently from political candidates responding to questions concerning the 17th Amendment the Constitution which required direct election of Senators.

Here is a question for the board...

Why even HAVE a Senate if they don't represent the interests of the people's state's governments?

Most arguments point that smaller states would get stomped on by larger ones with larger populations due to proportional representation in the House, but that begs the question of so what? If direct representation is the correct thing to do then states with larger populations SHOULD have more power. They have more citizens.

Why in the world do we need to have TWO separate directly elected representative legislatures?

Other arguments usually go toward the IDEA that the Senate should be the more deliberate, more mature body in which cooler heads prevail. Why anybody would think this would be the case when the Senate and the House are elected in the same way and have the same pressures is beyond me. In fact, it occurs to me that the pressures would be GREATER than in the house due to the power of being a senator. Special interest groups get more bang for their buck if they have a Senator in their pocket than a lowly representative from the House.

Practically speaking getting rid of the 17th Amendment is like tilting at windmills, BUT if we wanted to give a LITTLE bit of leverage back to the states why not do something like remove the approval of Supreme Court justices from the Senate (they can still approve lower judges) and let the STATES approve them via 3/4's majority. Doing it one State Legislature at a time would be too lengthy and complex but maybe by governor or Attorney General of each State?

The President would then have to think HARD about choosing candidates that States might think are weak on State's rights. It would not give States the power they had prior to the 17th might make a small difference over time.

Anonymous said...

Instead of leaving a comment I would invite all to the special Glen Beck is having on this issue come this Friday. I dont care about your party affliation, but rather as an endeavor to gather evidence whether for or against - which if I may remind each of us is how the law of rationality works; i.e. only beleive those things warrented by the evidence. Good day.