7 votes

Why the 17th Amendment Should be Repealed

Before 1914, senators were not directly elected by the people. They were appointed by the state legislatures. The 17th amendment changed that, and not for the better. Why is it bad to have them be elected by the people? Isn’t that more democratic, and therefore, better? Not really.

The original intent of the founders was to have a Federalist system which consisted of individual states and a small central government with very limited powers. The idea was that the states would send the senators to Washington to represent them. If a senator started voting against the best interests of the state which he represented, he could be immediately recalled.

Continue reading: Repeal the 17th Amendment



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Sounds good to me.

Sounds good to me.

This is correct: the 17th

This is correct: the 17th Amendment should be repealed. Senators are supposed to represent their states. House members represent the people in their districts.
The problem is that senators have six-year terms, and can buy a way into office if they're well-heeled...you wind up with a Kennedy you can never get rid of, or some other beautiful/handsome airheads that look good on TV. They no longer represent the governments of their states, because their states no longer appoint them.
Maybe that's why states' rights have shrunk and welfare has grown...and it may be why we're constantly at war overseas. We now have a class of professional senators, whose jobs amount to staying in power.

this is important! if you have not looked into it, please do!

this was an important check on federal power. without it the states effectively have no voice. this is why the senate term is 6 yrs. this is to retain "memory" or wisdom.
both the 16th and the 17th need to be repealed. we got both of them at about the sametime we got the FED!

Many small-government people

Many small-government people don't realize just how important this should be to them.

I don't know about that

Would Rand have been elected with a system like this?

What matters more is that the Senators are beholden to the

States, NOT the People. The People already have voice in Congress - in the House.

If the Senators can be recalled at any time if they vote for increased Federal power (like before the 17th) then there is an instant check on centralized government.

They would be "good" because they are on a short leash.

"Let nothing more be said of confidence in men in government, but bind them down with the chains of the Constitution."

One good senator (a rarity, due to popular vote)

Doesn't make up for all the harm that has resulted from the feds trampling all over the rights of the states. Plus, the selection of senators by the states would lead to many more "defenders of liberty" than just Rand. It would totally change the landscape of politics, for the better.

Here is a link to my article on the 17th. It will explain why the 17th was a bad idea and that it needs to be repudiated, not repealed due to the fact that it is an invalid amendment in the first place:

http://www.myspace.com/jimmy_madison/blog/306925433

Thanks for your time,

Paul C. Hanson