Discussion Arising from OKC 2nd Amendment Rally

[mugsy]

Sound logic. But how are you going to sell a repeal of the 17th amendment when many of our people and govt. can't even determine the intent of the 2nd?

I think you are definitely on to something but the Feds won't be giving up their power willingly and the electorate is too stupid to see a repeal would enhance their representation.

Well, you make a good point. My approach would be to try to have this one be asked for 2/3 of the States which forces Congress to have to convene a Constitutional Convention (never done since the first one at the beginning of the Republic) - and that approach itself might spur Congress by a 2/3 vote in each House to pass a resolution asking the States to decide on the matter to prevent a potentially wider reaching Constitutional Convention. I am assuming that the greatest traction for an argument for more State influence in the Federal system would be at the State level.
BTW - interesting note - the President has no role in the Constitutional amendment process other than the "bully pulpit".

So, I guess the direct answer is to try to interest people at the local level and, in turn, have State representatives start the push within their own State Houses and between/amongst the several States. i.e. a bottom-up movement.

 

[mugsy]

Perhaps my view is a bit simplistic, but before the 17th, the Framers wanted to ensure the balance of power and safeguard the Republic of sovereign states. Congress was intentionally intended to be directly elected by the people, with districts expanding as each one reached 30,000. All the ideas would emerge from Congress and sent to the Senate, who's main intent was to ensure the sovereignty of the State was protected, because the state was in a sense, a living person.

Direct election of the Senate ensured that the sovereign state was no longer represented, allowing an effective shift of power from the State as an autonomous entity represented in the Senate, to the direct election allowing a march toward central control and en end of the Tenth Amendment. In my view, 1913 was a particularly bad year for the Federation with the creation of the private Federal Reserve Bank, the establishment of the Federal income tax and creation of the IRS as the collection agency for the private Federal Reserve Bank and of course, the Federal Reserve Act, which surrendered all monetary matters to private bankers allowed to create money from thin air, backed with nothing, at interest and accountable to no one.

I think you basically have summarized it well. The direct election of Senators weakened the ability of States to affect what was coming at them out of Washington (i.e. Federalism itself was weakened), and the income tax was designed to allow the Federal government to have, theoretically at least, access to almost the whole of all income in the U.S. to feed its own growth. I am not sure I buy the Federal Reserve bank arguments - I've heard them before but am still not convinced. Nevertheless, on the matter of the 17th Amendment I think we are in agreement.

 

[mugsy]

I am going to start by writing to Sen Dahm about this and see what his take is, then I'd like to find a conservative state Senator of longer standing to whom I'd propose the same questions. If you do internet searches you can see that there is already a small but active group of State-level political groups supporting this idea. Ultimately, one would need to link with them and coordinate activities.
Remember, the opposition will be fierce if this idea should gain any momentum and the argument will be that "They (the hated They) are trying to steal democracy away from the common man" probably laced with a heavy dose of racism and sexism charges.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

Can you imagine the outcry from people if this was brought up nationally? We are fighting to keep the 2A but want to repeal the 17th? And that is what would be the hardest sale. We are doing everything that we can to preserve the 2A and everyone across the nation is saying the same thing. We are all saying that the president or anyone else can't just change the constitution to fit their belief. Or change it to fit the current times. So if politicians came out trying to repeal the 17th liberals would use the 2A argument against us. It could be said as being double standard. We say that no one can change the constitution because we don't want the 2A to be touched yet say its ok to change the 17th amendment? I doubt very seriously that this would ever fly. But it would be nice if our government could be like our fore fathers envisioned it to be. Hope what I said made some sense.

 

[farmerbyron]

Can you imagine the outcry from people if this was brought up nationally? We are fighting to keep the 2A but want to repeal the 17th? And that is what would be the hardest sale. We are doing everything that we can to preserve the 2A and everyone across the nation is saying the same thing. We are all saying that the president or anyone else can't just change the constitution to fit their belief. Or change it to fit the current times. So if politicians came out trying to repeal the 17th liberals would use the 2A argument against us. It could be said as being double standard. We say that no one can change the constitution because we don't want the 2A to be touched yet say its ok to change the 17th amendment? I doubt very seriously that this would ever fly. But it would be nice if our government could be like our fore fathers envisioned it to be. Hope what I said made some sense.

Actually I beg the antis to try and abolish the second amendment. I would rather they try and remove it than say they are protecting it while they gut it from the inside out. There is a process to change the constitution, use it. It is purposefully difficult.

 

[Murph]

....and the electorate is too stupid to see a repeal would enhance their representation.

This raises a point I have wondered about for years. Is the lack of rational behaviour from the electorate caused by stupidity, or ignorance? An answer would be extremely useful, if the problem is ignorance, even 2nd or 3rd order ignorance, then logically maximum effort should be devoted to education.

I don't have an answer if the problem is stupidity, or even a test to see if the problem is hardware or software, or even both.

So my default position, until I can find an answer, is to operate on the assumption the promotion of rationality and knowledge is the path least likely to be in error.

I can tell I need to spend more time working on a taxonomy, but I already knew that=)

 

[dutchwrangler]

I found this video interesting. Although not directly relevant to the repeal of the 17th Amendment, it has some valid points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCNd7h0fsdE


Much of what I view as problematic at the national level is that the central.gov has over stepped the enumerated powers assigned to it by the Constitution. Even if the 17A were left intact, the central.gov can still be limited if it were to only address those enumerated powers.

 

[skyydiver]

I agree in theory. I have a terrible fear of a Concon run amok, though.

 

[rawhide]

Actually I beg the antis to try and abolish the second amendment. I would rather they try and remove it than say they are protecting it while they gut it from the inside out. There is a process to change the constitution, use it. It is purposefully difficult.

While I agree with you, the leftists that I debate with see the Constitution as irrelevant and outdated and chuckle when I cite it. Therefore Article 5 doesn't need to be followed. They much prefer to "make" the rules that are best for us through judicial interpretation and executive agency regulation.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Direct election of Senators increased influence peddling and campaign support by out of state parties. Senators elected by the legislature should be more state friendly because they are more likely to be held accountable by the legislature of the state they represent.

If you want that effect from the repeal of the 17th Amendment, then you would also have to pass an Amendment prohibiting the states from choosing how their Senators are appointed.

At the time the 17th Amendment was considered (and passed), there were 46 states in the Union. 37 out of those 46 states held popular elections for Senate, with 28 of those states binding the state legislature to the results of the popular vote, and 9 requiring the legislature to take the popular vote into consideration when making the appointments.

Repealing the 17th Amendment won't change a thing unless the states are also barred from measuring a popular vote for US Senate seats. So unless you're prepared to fight a battle for removing a state's right to choose how to appoint its officials, fighting for repeal of the 17th is a useless battle and resources should really be directed elsewhere.