Smitty, I hope you get some discussion with this thread. For months I have been beating the drum for repeal on every relevant thread on the intertubes, but have generated almost zero reaction.

One of the most beneficial effects of repeal will be that we are no longer all shoved into one-size-fits-all governance. I expect states like Texas and Oklahoma to become “Sanctuary States”, attracting refugees from the blue states. A whole different kind of Supreme Court nominee will be required to make it through consent. States that want to try out the Fair Tax will be able to.

The first effect, however, will be to choke off the flow of money to Washington, which is at the root of most of our problems up there.

I have no position but I think repealing the 16 and 17th should be considered. The 16th should be repeal for sure so the states can do a Fairtax and get the feds out of the bizniz of collecting taxes.

Ever wonder why the 16th, 17th amendments along with the Federal Reserve came on line simultaneously?

Dude, let the bitterness go. Look on the bright side, McCain will likely die in office.

McCain could have gone down if Arizona conservatives bothered to find a legitimate conservative candidate. Thomas Knapp is right about J.D. Hayworth.

Getting rid of those amendments means no Republican pick ups in blue states. I would propose that an amendment on term limits for house and senate makes far more sense. If we are limiting the Pres to the maximum of 8, we should limit congresscritters to eight years in the House and one or two terms in the Senate.

“Wilson, FDR, and the Progressives may have been sincere, but they’ve been proven existentially wrong for their Constitutional tinkering.”

The big bankers who bankrolled and masterminded the sacrileges of 1913 were sincerely hijacking our country. Anyone notice the bailout banks are directly descended from the original banking interests that designed the Federal Reserve banking cartel front?

The 17th amendment was totally designed to cut the state’s representation out of the federal government. Now the feds can mandate all kinds of programs and the states are left figuring out how to pay for them.

I keep hearing these arguments, but I’ve never heard a compelling one that somehow letting the state legislatures select senators will result in a better outcome. I tend to trust the electorate more than I do the elected…

Ditto #&

“Wilson, FDR, and the Progressives may have been sincere, but they’ve been proven existentially wrong for their Constiutional tinkering.”

Nice try at trying to pin “progressivism” on the Democrats … but the 16th and 17th Amendments were proposed/supported by a Republican president (Taft) and passed through for ratification by the states by a Republican majority Congress (in fairness, on th 17th they were pressed to do so by the fact that the states were within a few of the number required to call a constitutional convention for that, and possibly other purposes).

The 16th was ratified before Wilson even took office, the 17th shortly thereafter.

@Kn@ppster,
I’d never say that Progressivism is a purely Democrat phenomenon. You could argue that the Democrats are, in fact, playing a cleaner hand, as that portion of the Ruling Class does a different sort of Constitutional pandering.

16, 17, and the Fed. Res. Act need to go.

Smitty,

I agree that the 16th and the Federal Reserve Act need to go.

The 17th? It wouldn’t especially BOTHER me to see it go, but I don’t get exercised about it because I don’t see that undoing it would undo the results/distortions it produced.

I’m no fan of either of the political class’s pet parties, but I do have slightly more disdain for the GOP, which has been a big-government party from its very beginning and continues to be one while pretending otherwise.

Smitty, looking at the California lege…let’s not and say we did.

No, I take that back. If I were king, I’d go Medo-Persian on the Seventeenth and make it unrepealable. It’s easier, more efficient, and more reliable to buy a majority of the legislature than it is to buy a majority of the voting public.

Diogenes:

The point is to STARVE THE BEAST. It’s a matter of money. Now the money flows to Washington, and therefore so does the power, because there is little incentive (or disincentive) for Congress to show restraint.

The Constitution was created by the States, and delegates a limited, enumerated set of powers to the national government. The Founders intended that, unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate would not represent the People, but rather the States themselves. This limits the power of the national government, because any senator who votes for a budget that takes too much money from the states, or who votes for unfunded mandates, or for the wrong kind of Supreme Court nominee, gets quickly yanked back home and replaced.

Direct election of senators removed that crucial check on the power of the federal government, resulting in a runaway Supreme Court (commerce clause), bloated bureaucracy, and all the other ills we see in Washington. Returning to the Founders’ vision will STARVE THE BEAST. Cut off the flow of money to DC, leave it in the states, and Obama, Pelosi and Reid are emasculated: No money = no power. Responsible states like mine will be free to go about their business without being dragged down by the left.

Agree that STARVE THE BEAST should be top priority. The last guy who tried it issued Executive Order 11110 issuing silver certificates in the hopes that they would eventually replace Federal Reserve notes. We all know that he got his brains blown out shortly thereafter and the whole matter was dropped. These central bankers play pretty nasty. Nelson Rockefeller’s secretary told investigators that the gold from Fort Knox had been shipped out of the country and she “fell” out of a tenth story window. Funny how that happens.

Would state legislatures vote differently than the general population? I have to think that they would, I’m not saying that their selection wouldn’t be corrupt as well, but the senator couldn’t count on total political and legal ignorance when running for election. There are so many people out there who vote solely based on how many signs they see or if the candidates name reminds them of their 2nd grade teacher, or they just “seem nice”. Bah.

republicanmother:

There’s been a lot of lip service given to “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance”. In the past I think most of us have taken that to apply to external threats. The Obama administration and resulting Tea Parties show that it also applies internally. In the end the Tea Parties are composed of citizens who have realized we’ve been coasting along on auto-pilot. People are acquiring a taste for being active participants in their government; the internet and social media provide power and scope unavailable to earlier times.

With repeal of the 17th Amendment the bulk of tax money will stay in the states, because the state legislatures will no longer impotent in the face of the federal tax juggernaut. States where the citizens stay active and engaged will prosper. States where the citizens go back on auto-pilot, or buy the rainbows and unicorns BS, will not. But the citizens of responsible states can no longer be extorted to pay for bailouts for the basket cases.

Example: State legislator thinking about taxes: Hmmm, should I support federal taxes to pay for faceless bureaucrats in the Department of Education, or should I fix that stretch of road my constituents keep hammering on me about?

Smitty’s been pushing for an Article V Constitutional Convention.

Oops: Didn’t complete the post.

Smitty’s been pushing for an Article V Constitutional Convention. There will be great temptation to try to “fine-tune” things (term limits, balanced budget, etc). I submit that those are only symptoms of the underlying problem. An amendment that repeals the 17th, and specifies that the states, and ONLY the states, determine the methods of electing and recalling senators, should suffice.

Well, some way to rein in the Supreme Court until the dust settles might be in order. Or not. After all, the Senate can always impeach any Justice that can’t get with the program.

Obviously some of you don’t examine state legislatures too closely.

“Senator John McCain: Poster Child For 17th Amendment Repeal”

Let’s ‘do’ the 16th while we’re at it & use Cloward-Piven as the reason the FairTax must be implemented.

It’s the only real tax policy that’ll get our Collective-Volt out of that ditch Barack keeps yelping aboot.

Finally, lets make gerrymandered districts criminal offenses, punishable under the harshest part of Sharia that Justice Kagan can find.

Seriously, if we can’t develop an open & non-subjective algorithm for apportionment, then Silicon Valley should just go ahead & move to China.

btw. . . don’t forget, the bell-weather state of Missouri just voted down Obamacare to the tune of 72%

tD