Repeal Amendment

[foxpaws]

Shag had posted this on the Third Party thread - and I had an interesting discussion about this idea this weekend -

The Repeal Amendment

"Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed." ​

Our Founding Fathers gave enumerated powers to the Federal Government and reserved most of the power for the States. Today, the federal government has usurped the power that the Founders originally intended for the States.

The Repeal Amendment is dedicated to restoring our nations economic liberty by advocating for an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that restores the balance of power between the States and Federal Government.

Good idea or Bad? Shag believes Good.

 

[Calabrio]

Why not just repeal the 17th amendment.
That makes much more sense.

 

[foxpaws]

Why not just repeal the 17th amendment.
That makes much more sense.

It isn't the same thing - and then we would just be voting for our state legislators according to who they would appoint as Senators for our state. That is why we have the 17th, because the state legislatures were becoming 'one issue' places - who they would appoint to the Senate. It was stymieing state government. And in some cases, some states couldn't come up with a consensus - and their senate seats sat vacant - so 'you' and 'your' state had no voice in the Senate. Your Senator in Washington is a very powerful individual - When choosing between state issues and who you want to represent you in the Senate - often people would set aside state issues, and focus on the person that your local legislator was going to back in the Senate race. In the long run it actually somewhat removed your voice at the state level.

The senate is very powerful. They should be elected by the people, not by 'insulated' state legislatures.

By putting in term limits you would get many of the same results.

 

[Calabrio]

I didn't say it was the same thing, I said it makes more sense.
Your response is utter nonsense.

No, people would not elect their state reps purely in order to shape the make-up of the U.S. Senate, this would be especially true if we had the appropriate sized, limited, smaller federal government.

The 17th amendment wasn't passed because the State legislators were becoming one issue places. We can go through the history of it, but it really didn't gain any momentum until the Progressive movement in Wisconsin picked it up in an effort to move us towards a direct democracy. And it was a mistake.

And there was no epidemic of vacant senate seats while the Senate was in session prior to it's passage either. There were some isolated incidence, basically all related, directly or indirectly, to slavery.

Term limits do not get similar results as the repeal of the 17th amendment.

But, noting that this is a federal system, who represents the interests of the States in Washington? And would a representative of the State support infinite unfunded mandates or is that something a politician pandering to the populous might do?

 

[shagdrum]

more limits on Federal overreach is a good thing.

Weather that comes from the various states having the power to directly overturn Federal law, or through the re-injection of States interests as a counterbalance to that of the general populace is fine by me.

Do you think more limits on Federal power is a bad thing?

 

[foxpaws]

I didn't say it was the same thing, I said it makes more sense.
Your response is utter nonsense.

No, people would not elect their state reps purely in order to shape the make-up of the U.S. Senate, this would be especially true if we had the appropriate sized, limited, smaller federal government.

The 17th amendment wasn't passed because the State legislators were becoming one issue places. We can go through the history of it, but it really didn't gain any momentum until the Progressive movement in Wisconsin picked it up in an effort to move us towards a direct democracy. And it was a mistake.

Yes they did Cal-it was a big part of the campaigns. Also - by 1912 30 out of the 48 states had already voted in 'direct' voting of senators - before the amendment was even put forth to the states. The states had already taken action because it was becoming such a decisive issue in the state legislatures. In fact in 1910 we came within a couple of states of a constitutional convention over this exact issue - the states wanted the amendment and were going to force it on the ballot to get around congress, which did not want the amendment. The STATES wanted this Cal - this is an example of the states even threatening to go around the congress to get an amendment to the people.

Oh - remember those progressives in WI were Republicans...

And there was no epidemic of vacant senate seats while the Senate was in session prior to it's passage either. There were some isolated incidence, basically all related, directly or indirectly, to slavery.

Actually Cal, most of the deadlocks or empty senate seats happened after 1880 - the worse being Delaware who managed not to vote in a senator from 1899 to 1903 - and for 2 of those years they had no representation whatsoever. Certainly not related to slavery - but to a contentious state legislature.

Term limits do not get similar results as the repeal of the 17th amendment.

But, noting that this is a federal system, who represents the interests of the States in Washington? And would a representative of the State support infinite unfunded mandates or is that something a politician pandering to the populous might do?

The states we willing to give this up for a reason cal - because it wasn't working. Remember - the states wanted this amendment and pressured their congresspeople to get this amendment passed.

Here is a great paper that really shows how the election of senators before the 17th had become politics at their worse...It didn't have anything along the lines of 'states rights upheld' but majority politics, deals, and party bosses getting their way.

 

[foxpaws]

more limits on Federal overreach is a good thing.

Weather that comes from the various states having the power to directly overturn Federal law, or through the re-injection of States interests as a counterbalance to that of the general populace is fine by me.

Do you think more limits on Federal power is a bad thing?

No I don't Shag, limits on Federal power needs to happen - but I also know history fairly well - and between the bribery - the months spent in state legislatures trying to come up with a majority (pluralities often weren't allowed, and so elections went on for months to get a majority), the backroom deals, the 'mud slinging', it wasn't working any longer.

 

[foxpaws]

But - how about the repeal amendment - shag, you stated you thought this was a good idea - why?

 

[Calabrio]

Yes they did Cal-it was a big part of the campaigns.

Being an important part of the campaign IS NOT the same thing as being a single issue election.

Also - by 1912 30 out of the 48 states had already voted in 'direct' voting of senators - before the amendment was even put forth to the states.

As I stated, the issue didn't gain momentum until the Progressive movement in Wisconsin seized on it in an effort to move the country toward direct-democracy. We can address their political goals at a later time.

Oh - remember those progressives in WI were Republicans...

Yes, some of them were.... some still are.

Actually Cal, most of the deadlocks or empty senate seats happened after 1880 -

What year did the Civil War end?
1865. The majority of the problems came about in the reconstruction era- as I said. And was then advanced by the Progressive movement during the "Progressive Era," which the histories refer to the years 1880-1920.

 

[foxpaws]

As I stated, the issue didn't gain momentum until the Progressive movement in Wisconsin ceased on it in an effort to move the country toward direct-democracy. We can address their political goals at a later time.

Cal - you still haven't answered the fact that the STATES wanted this changed - they were willing to go to a Constitutional Convention to get this changed.

The States pushed through the 17th amendment - the congress didn't want it changed.

 

[Calabrio]

Cal - you still haven't answered the fact that the STATES wanted this changed - they were willing to go to a Constitutional Convention to get this changed.

The land mass or the politicians.
Because if you're talking about the politicians and a political movement, then I addressed this point.
If you're talking geologically, then I have no response.

 

[shagdrum]

but I also know history fairly well

Well...a one sided distortion of history...

...between the bribery - the months spent in state legislatures trying to come up with a majority (pluralities often weren't allowed, and so elections went on for months to get a majority), the backroom deals, the 'mud slinging', it wasn't working any longer.

If this was such a problem, how did the 17th Amendment improve it?

All it did was create common interest across the two houses (instead of the senate being representative of the states) and allowed for MORE corruption going on BETWEEN the two houses. Instead of a divided legislature, we had two bodies dominated by the same interests.

If looking at this as a "problem/solution" dynamic (as you seem to do), your argument doesn't make sense. The "solution" would (and did) not only increase corruption but increase the reach of those corrupt actions.

 

[foxpaws]

But shag - the states weren't being represented - it was the seated majority political bosses in the states that pulled the strings, that took the bribes, that made the deals, that got the senators elected.

Read the paper I posted the link to - it is really interesting to see what was happening in state legislatures at the time right before the 17th amendment.

And as much as Cal would like to sweep this under the table - the state governments were begging for this amendment. The federal level didn't want it - the congress backed way off and wasn't going to do a thing, until the states threatened them.

It was already full of corruption - it is easier to corrupt a small group - such as a legislative branch - than to corrupt an entire voting populace. Corrupting 100 people (or what ever size the legislative branch that was in charge of electing the state senator) or at least leading them down a certain path is easier than doing the same to the entire voting population of a state.

 

[shagdrum]

Foxy, you are missing the point I am raising. I am talking about corruption at the FEDERAL level.

Supposed corruption in individual states is confined to that state. Corruption at the FEDERAL level reaches not only across the entire nation but internationally as well. The Senate as representative of state interests provided a check on that FEDERAL level corruption by providing a counterweight to the House which represented the general populace.

You need to understand how the various checks and balances set up in the Constitution work. Focusing on supposed corruption in various state legislatures avoids that much bigger concern; clouding the issue until you cannot see the forest through the trees.

 

[foxpaws]

Foxy, you are missing the point I am raising. I am talking about corruption at the FEDERAL level.

Supposed corruption in individual states is confined to that state. Corruption at the FEDERAL level reaches not only across the entire nation but internationally as well. The Senate as representative of state interests provided a check on that FEDERAL level corruption by providing a counterweight to the House which represented the general populace.

You need to understand how the various checks and balances set up in the Constitution work. Focusing on supposed corruption in various state legislatures avoids that much bigger concern; clouding the issue until you cannot see the forest through the trees.

But shag - it was the political bosses in the states - which also represented the national party that pulled the strings. The democrat leaders in NYC decided who the senators were going to be, and they made sure that those senators would tow the line when it came to voting along party lines. The state's issues and concerns were way down on the list of importance. There was lots of corruption - those senators were answerable to the party shag... at the federal level.

Once again - the STATES wanted this amendment badly - you still have yet to address that fact. There are very good reasons that the states wanted this -

 

[shagdrum]

Political parties and the corruption of political machines in states is beside the point.

Can you confront the notion of corruption at the FEDERAL level being kept in check by the counterweight of the Senate focusing on STATE concerns?

Or, to put it in a more immediate light; could Obamacare have been passed into law without the 17th Amendment in place?