tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22818602.post8394912187224218448..comments2023-10-05T15:30:04.143-04:00Comments on Repeal the 17th Amendment: Is Any Part of the Constitution Unconstitutional?Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05043279868308825316noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22818602.post-69561283187080785092011-01-07T21:07:09.743-05:002011-01-07T21:07:09.743-05:00Dan;
Good point. Maybe you should bounce this off...Dan;<br /><br />Good point. Maybe you should bounce this off of Prof Z on the discussion board to get his take. <br /><br />It's interesting though that Napolitano hasn't had Prof Zywicki on his show yet to discuss the 17th. He would make a great guest.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05043279868308825316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22818602.post-57396068760374743862011-01-06T17:26:38.413-05:002011-01-06T17:26:38.413-05:00Judge Napolitano's argument about the 17th bei...Judge Napolitano's argument about the 17th being "unconstitutional" because of the Founders' views makes him (and conservatives/libertarians) look really stupid to non-conservatives.<br /><br />According to this logic, the 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and possibly the 26th would be unconstitutional because if the Founders wanted women and blacks to vote, DC to vote for President, and block the possibility of a poll tax or age limit, they would have set up the original Constitution that way.<br /><br />Also, opinions varied - recall that Alexander Hamilton was not only famous for his duel with Aaron Burr, but wanting a President-for-Life. Others felt only landowners should vote, and thus the closing time of the voting booths.<br /><br />What Judge Napolitano should have focused on was how the 17th is a possible conflict with Article V: "and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." Is a Constitutional amendment from 100 years ago "consent" by politicians today?danqhttp://www.xcopfly.comnoreply@blogger.com