Discussion Arising from OKC 2nd Amendment Rally

[farmerbyron]

While I agree with you, the leftists that I debate with see the Constitution as irrelevant and outdated and chuckle when I cite it.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.

They can chuckle all they like but the constitution is still the supreme law of the land. We are a nation of laws and our service members and representatives swear an oath to defend the constitution. Their opinion is legally inaccurate. Well at least in theory......

 

[farmerbyron]

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.

All valid points. Didn't realize that most of the states had already moved to popular vote beforehand. There is no movement to repeal the 17th so I don't think anything will be pursued on this front anyways.

 

[rawhide]

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.

I agree with you. My statement was simply answering the question asked about how legislative appointment could have a different impact on a senator's role.

 

[mugsy]

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.

VM,

I don't think I agree with you that it would make no difference. It's true that States can make their own rules for the actual selection of Senators and some, would allow for popular election but others might not or they might act as checks upon those candidates that seemed to be opposed to State interest - in any event at least it would be the State's choice, their choice, not a permanent bar preventing the State from acting. I also believe that the looming possibility of the State acting would, in and of itself, be a brake upon a rampant abuse of the Federal system. In fact, if it was so good and the popular election of Senator's was never in doubt then why was there any move to amend the Constitution to begin with? Someone, i.e. the Progressives of that era, believed that it was necessary to ensure that no State could back-track or try to return to the originally designed system.

 

[vvvvvvv]

why was there any move to amend the Constitution to begin with?

The movement for popular election of Senators started in the 1820s, so it really wasn't limited to the Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century that brought the 17th Amendment.

Throughout the 19th century, the campaign for popular election centered on the public's perception that Senate seats were bought and sold - a perception that can only be verified as being false based on extremely few allegations meriting an investigation and far fewer findings of corruption. Later, the campaign centered on the legislative deadlocks of the 1890's and early 1900's that resulted in no Senator(s) for a state being appointed.

 

[mugsy]

The movement for popular election of Senators started in the 1820s, so it really wasn't limited to the Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century that brought the 17th Amendment.

Throughout the 19th century, the campaign for popular election centered on the public's perception that Senate seats were bought and sold - a perception that can only be verified as being false based on extremely few allegations meriting an investigation and far fewer findings of corruption. Later, the campaign centered on the legislative deadlocks of the 1890's and early 1900's that resulted in no Senator(s) for a state being appointed.

With all due respect, the movement in the 1820's was insignificant - in fact it was more or less on par with what we are doing now namely, discussion without significant political traction. Only nearly a century later and after a civil war that fueled public perception of "States Rights" being a code-word for rebellion did it gain steam again.

It is interesting that now we have the widespread perception, and to some extent accurate perception, that Senatorial seats are the playgrounds of millionaires only. I think one could make a good case that State legislatures would be better positioned to select people who don't have to have the massive personal resources of the current crop of Senators.

 

[vvvvvvv]

With all due respect, the movement in the 1820's was insignificant - in fact it was more or less on par with what we are doing now namely, discussion without significant political traction. Only nearly a century later and after a civil war that fueled public perception of "States Rights" being a code-word for rebellion did it gain steam again.

It is interesting that now we have the widespread perception, and to some extent accurate perception, that Senatorial seats are the playgrounds of millionaires only. I think one could make a good case that State legislatures would be better positioned to select people who don't have to have the massive personal resources of the current crop of Senators.

I know several Tea Party folks that would argue about the insignificance of the current movement - seems the 17th pops up in nearly every conversation I have with one of them.

That said, I do agree that direct election of Senators is wrong as it upsets the long-term stability that the Senate is supposed to afford us. However, I am not prepared to expend resources arguing for a measure to require state legislatures to appoint Senators without advisory popular elections. I believe such resources can be put to better use defending or reforming other parts of the Constitution and surrounding caselaw and that the 17th Amendment issue is a very minor one in the grand scheme of things.

 

[mugsy]

I know several Tea Party folks that would argue about the insignificance of the current movement - seems the 17th pops up in nearly every conversation I have with one of them.

That said, I do agree that direct election of Senators is wrong as it upsets the long-term stability that the Senate is supposed to afford us. However, I am not prepared to expend resources arguing for a measure to require state legislatures to appoint Senators without advisory popular elections. I believe such resources can be put to better use defending or reforming other parts of the Constitution and surrounding caselaw and that the 17th Amendment issue is a very minor one in the grand scheme of things.

I wasn't implying that the Tea Party movement was insignificant just that there wasn't a whole lot of support for a 17th Amendment repeal right now. It is a discussion point - which is how things begin. First, educate and ay the groundwork then maybe in 5,10,or 20 years one can make an effective and lasting political action argument. I have no illusions about the likelihood of anything being done right now. As long as our government lurches from debt crisis to budget crisis very little of anything useful will get done.

 

[Peace_Keeper]

Good thought provoking question. I like having veto power. It may be easily canceled by another voter with opposing ideas, but it's my opportunity to express my opinion.

 

[cmhbob]

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

This, x1000. Remember that the first ConCon was publicly called to amend the AoC, even though the planners knew what they were going to do. There is no structure for a ConCon, and I can honestly see lots of opportunities for tremendous civil unrest coming out of the idea.