Aug

03

2010

Notes on the 17th Amendment

by Skip

The 17th Amendment – the one that shifted the election of Senators from the State Legislators (a key part of holding the power of Federal Government in check vis-a-vis that of the States) was flogged by Progressives at the turn of the last century as being "anti-cronyism".  Why shouldn’t the public vote on Senators?

Much to the delight of Progressives, it passed – IMHO, it set the stage to vastly increase the power of the Federal government.  Why?  The "power governor" (like the speed governor in a car) that kept the States in the game that put the States’ rights and interests first was gone (watch the videos here and here from a 912er).  Obamacare – would it have passed?    Boortz has more thoughts (and a recap of the NH CD-1 Candidates thoughts after the jump):

Can you imagine how our own battle with illegal immigration might be different if the Senators still represented state governments? Illegals cost state governments tens of billions of dollars. The children of illegals have to be educated and their emergency medical needs must be tended to. Then there is the crime costs associated with illegals. Here are just a few estimates of the cost of illegal immigration to some individual states:

    * Florida: At least $2 billion a year.
    * California: Over $10 billion a year.
    * Kansas: (yes … Kansas) $442 million a year.

And then there’s Arizona … the cost there is over $1.3 billion a year. Arizona tries to do something to solve the problem. It’s clear that the federal government will do nothing to control illegal immigration so long as The Community Organizer is in office … so the Arizona legislature steps up. As soon as Arizona passes its law many other states reveal plans to do the same. The Obama steps up and orders the Justice Department to file a lawsuit against Arizona … to sue Arizona for its attempt to enforce laws that the federal government refuses to support. How might this have all been different if Arizona, New Mexico and all of the other states considering passing laws to stem the invasion of illegals had official representation in Washington in the person of two Senators each?

Then there’s the issue of unfunded mandates. Medicaid…

would be the prime example here. There can’t be a state in our nation that isn’t wrestling with the federally-mandated costs of dealing with Medicaid. How do you think this situation might change if senators representing the states, and not the Medicaid beneficiaries, had a voice in policy?

So .. the Democrats want to use a Republican threat of repealing the 17th Amendment to frighten voters? This, if it is in fact true, should be seen as a positive … not a negative. It’s time to strengthen state governments at the expense of federal power.

I agree – given the excesses of the last century, can we rely solely on our national leaders?  I think not – and I also think that given this, we need this protection back for our Republic.

Oh, here’s what the NH CD-1 candidates have to say:

    

Frank Guinta    Rich Ashooh

   

Bob Bestani  Sean Mahoney

Like it? Share it!

by Skip Murphy

Co-founder of GraniteGrok, my concern is around Individual Liberty and Freedom (and how Government is taking that away from us). My fight, from a Conservative (with small "L" libertarian leanings) and evangelical Christian perspective, is with the Progressives that are forcing a collectivized and secular humanistic future upon us. As TEA Party activist, citizen journalist (and pundit!), my goal is to use the New Media to advance the radical notions of America's Founders back into our culture again.

See all posts by Skip
Visit Skip's website

Leave a Comment

  • http://www.newhampshirewatchdog.org Grant Bosse

    Insulating Senators from the voters even further would do nothing to restore states’ rights or the balance of power outlined in the Tenth Amendment. It would likely result in Senators chosen from the ranks of the majority party in each state legislature. Add that to six year terms, and you’ve got a chamber almost entirely removed from the voters.
    Repealing the 17th Amendment is a really, really bad idea.

  • Steve

    The six year term has no meaning when a legislature that flips every two years can recall their Senator and toss them under the bus. At this point the voters have no recourse for six years. Yes, it would present us with party favorites, but show me where that is not the case now? New Hampshire (and most states)have a history of pressure politics where candidates lacking the proper pedigree get shafted anyway. The connected get the most money and the most endorsements from people in high places, and the media controls what people see and hear. Given the choice I’d choose the republic over the democracy despite the risks.

  • Tom Flaherty

    Grant – the Founders actually WANTED to insulate the Senators from the voters – they feared too much Democracy. Plus the Senate is supposed to answer to the State legislature, representing the State, not the people and special interests.
    Steve is correct when he says that State legislatures are rarely as long as 6 years, and flip over periodically. This gives them the power to recall their Senator if s/he is not serving the best interests of the State, as an independent entity.
    I, too, thought that the 17th Amendment was a good thing, until I went to a Constitutional seminar, learned about the origins, then did my own research on why the Founders designed it the way they did. They would not be happy with the 17th Amendment.
    The 17th Amendment may very well be the implement that gives Bill Binnie the Republican nomination, along with his money. Without it, he’d never have a chance at the seat. Today, it can be paid for and given to someone who the people “think” is their best option. It wasn’t supposed to be that way.
    The Legislature was designed as a Bi-cameral Congress: House for people, Senate for the respective States.

  • Tom

    I have to say (with remorse) that I disagree with Frank on his answer. The people DO have the ability to elect their Representatives – for the House. The founders intended for the Senate to be elected by the State Legislature. And this has nothing to do with local issues.

Previous post:

Next post:


Notice in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., Section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "Fair Use" provisions of Federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "Fair Use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.