Should the 17th Amendment be repealed?

Question

With the present 17th Amendment the States have lost all power as a State. The founders tried to establish a Republic but we are now in a Democracy which is the Majority over-riding the Minority. The Federal Government uses the States as provinces. Repeal of the 17th Amendment would help return this country to Benjamin Franklin's republic.

Answer 1

Those unhappy with the Supreme Court's recent activism regarding federalism should consider joining those who believe the 17th amendment should be repealed. Rather than railing at life-tenured justices who are inevitably going to chart their own courses, critics should focus instead on something they can affect, however difficult a repeal might be.

Repeal of the amendment would restore both federalism and bicameralism. It would also have a dramatic and positive effect on campaign spending. Senate races are currently among the most expensive. But if state legislatures were the focus of campaigns, more candidates might get more access with less money -- decidedly a good thing.

Returning selection of senators to state legislatures might be a cause that could attract both modern progressive and conservatives. For conservatives, obviously, it would be a return to the system envisioned by the framers. For progressives -- who now must appreciate that direct elections have only enhanced the ability of special interests to influence the process -- returning to the diffusion of power inherent in federalism and bicameralism may seem an attractive alternative, or complement, to campaign finance reform.

Divisions of power are rooted in our Constitution. Experience had taught the framers the dangers of concentrations of ruling authority, resulting in their ingenious template of checks and balances, with divisions and distributions of power.

Ultimate power in a democracy resides with the people. We are not a pure democracy, however, but rather a confederated republic (one that features, as well, county and local political subdivisions).

Thus, while there is national sovereignty, there is also state sovereignty. Power has been so divided and spread for one reason: to provide for and protect the highest sovereignty -- that of each individual citizen.

Only fools reject the wisdom of this founding principle of defusing power. Yet from the outset there has been debate regarding the appropriate allocation and balancing of these powers. The debate has focused on not only whether a particular matter should be dealt with at the state vs. the national level, but also on how these allocations are adjusted from time to time.

Of late, for example, along with laments for those who tragically lost their lives during the September 11 terrorist attack, there has been widespread concern with new realignments of federal/state powers that have followed in the name of homeland security

Answer 2

Yes. I've been an advocate for this for some time now. The Senate was selected by the State's legislatures so the States can have a say in the Federal Government. The House was (and still is) selected by the people to be the voice of the people.

Now, there really is not a lot of difference between the House and the Senate. I say repeal the 17th amendment and get the federal government back to what our founding fathers wanted.

Answer 3

Yes, the sooner the better. For those too lazy to look it up, this amendment change the elections of Senators from the members of the states' legislature to that of the people.

The concept of the Founders was to control the interest of the mob --- The two senators from each state had to be selected by the legislators of that state --- so any candidate had to appeal to the broad interest of that state.

Money (the milk of politics) was tied to the state thus Senators appealed to regional interest and over time looked at what was good for the nation from state eyes.

The 17th amendment open the Pandor's box of outside interest to elect Senators --- Ask why is Hollywood money pouring into MN? In MN or WI Senators seek cash from Hollywood or NYC and figure that if they get a majority of Milwaukee and Madison --- they win. Senators Kohl and Feingold do not care a twit about the issues of Rice Lake or Hudson --- Coleman and Klobuchar could not find Sebeka or Staples on a map without an aide. But they all seek money in Hollywood --

Let's marshall people and seek to repeal this law --- Sadly, the elected for life Senators will not be happy to put an Amendment to a vote in Congress.

Now ask me my views on the Electorial College and Gerrymandering --- Please.

Answer 4

Mjǫlnir is correct. Not everyone in the TEA party is aware of the issue with the 17th Amendment, and judging by many comments I've seen posted, there are a majority of people who don't understand the connotations of it. Nevertheless, some people in the TEA party who have been made aware, don't deny their desire to repeal it. If it's still a "free country" they are certainly entitled to speak their mind and try to teach others about it without all the insults heaped on them.

Answer 5

Repeal of that amendment would not do the lion's share of returning power to states. And that is because most of the power that states have lost has been, not because of how Congress legislates, but because of how the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the 14th Amendment. The 14th imposed a set of rules upon the states, and the rules are stated extremely vaguely, which has meant that the Court has had a great deal of license to imply from that amendment whatever they, the Justices, feel like.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AphN8sfI9lVvmbpuRDMhpnPsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071026104510AAk3ixj
.

Answer 6

The states lost most of their power when Franklin Roosevelt seized power during the Depression. WW2 got us in even deeper. We have not been a Republic since then...nor have we been a Democracy.

Answer 7

I am going to say no. But the problem I can see boils down to weather a person feels its a senators job to represent his state of the people of said state.

If a senator is to represent a state then it should be choose by the state and then in such case sure you should repeal the amendment.

However is a senator is supposed to represent the people of the state then only the people have the right to choose who they would want as a representative and as such the 17th amendment should remain.

Its really more a matter of your personal opinion on who the senator is supposed to truely represent.

Answer 8

Thought that was about the States electing their Senators?

Answer 9

I think it should be repealed, this country wasnt set up to be a direct democracy.

Answer 10

Democracy isn't perfect,
i think that 17th Amendment sould be repealed.
but im from isreal, so what do i know?