Sunday, August 5, 2012

Repealing The 17th Amendment?

I had no idea that this was a Tea Party issue.

"The “Repeal The 17th” movement is a vocal part of the overall tea party structure. Supporters of the plan say that ending the public vote for Senators would give the states more power to protect their own interests in Washington (and of course, give all of us “more liberty” in the process.) As their process of “vetting” candidates, some tea party groups have required candidates to weigh in on the idea of repeal in questionnaires. And that’s where the trouble starts."

The 17th amendment states, in part:

" 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."

Here is more information about the passage of the 17th amendment.

Here is a bit of what was going on politically when the 17th amendment was being considered. 

Here is a wiki on the political climate of the time.

"Ralph A. Rossum, writing in the San Diego Law Review, notes that the debate over the amendment's adoption lacked "any serious or systematic considerations of its potential impact on federalism...The popular press, the party platforms, the state memorials, the House and Senate debates, and the state legislative debates during ratification focused almost exclusively on expanding democracy, eliminating political corruption, defeating elitism and freeing the states from what they had come to regard as an onerous and difficult responsibility. The only three exceptions were Root, Hoar and Representative Franklin Bartlett."

It's interesting reading, and an interesting subject. Thoughts?

Elihu Root


  1. Heh heh. Returning Senatorial appointments to State Legislatures might be interesting ... in that it would take considerable power away from the coastal power centers...and provide a filibuster proof Senate of the Red State kind. State Upper Houses and Lower Houses by red state distribution in 2010. :D

    1. It would certainly shake things up, wouldn't it aridog? :))

      Personally, I'd like to see voting restricted to net taxpayers. It would give individuals an incentive to pull their own weight, silence the parasites who continually vote themselves "free" goodies, and give the rest of us more control over where our money goes. Our nation would be much stronger.

      Needless to say, my opinion is not a popular one.