• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Repealing the 17th Amendment

shanek said:


The purpose of the Electoral College doesn't have anything to do really with the Senate. It's a balancing act between having equal representation among the states in a Presidential election and the popular opinion of the people. With the former, you get people whose vote is worth a lot more than others; with the latter, you get the entire election chosen by a very few locations. The Electoral College is a not-so-happy-but-adequate medium. The only real problem with it is the winner-take-all method in which the states select their electors. That leads to things like the Florida fiasco.



It's not a ceiling, it's a majority. And it would just be lowered, is all, since you now have an overall lower number of electors.
What's with the unnecessary lecture?

I was responding to your question about how eliminating the US Senate might make the possibility of electing a national third party candidate more doable.
 
Frank Newgent said:

From what I understand they are in no way equivalent to a US Senator in terms of real power.

Don't the British vest all legislative power in the House of Commons?

You are correct I was drawing the parrel of people being selected by by politicains rather than the people.
 
geni said:
You are correct I was drawing the parrel of people being selected by by politicains rather than the people.

The people already have representation, in the House. And bills must originate in the House. The Senate was there to get approval from the representatives of the state governments as well. Checks and balances.
 
shanek, I really think you would like Democracy in America. I know I bring up a lot on here, and I don't know if it annoys anyone that I do, but I just think the man covered all the bases.

What follows is a little long, but see if this sounds familiar:

I think, then, that the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything that ever before existed in the world; our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories. I seek in vain for an expression that will accurately convey the whole of the idea I have formed of it; the old words despotism and tyranny are inappropriate: the thing itself is new, and since I cannot name, I must attempt to define it.

I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest; his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country.

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?


Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things;it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.

That was what de Tocqueville predicted would happen in our country. Is he amazing, or what?

Source.
 
shanek said:


The people already have representation, in the House. And bills must originate in the House. The Senate was there to get approval from the representatives of the state governments as well. Checks and balances.

The idea is tempting in theory...

The problem I have with it right now is more practical... for the most part, I can't stand what our state congressmen come up with, and I cringe at the thought of a committee of them selecting our senators.
 
Luke T. said:

shanek, I really think you would like Democracy in America. I know I bring up a lot on here, and I don't know if it annoys anyone that I do, but I just think the man covered all the bases.

What follows is a little long, but see if this sounds familiar:



That was what de Tocqueville predicted would happen in our country. Is he amazing, or what?

Source.
Tyranny of the majority. Isn't that an oxymoron? And you quote a Frenchman?

Okay, nail me up for trying to turn this thread on its head. All in fun...
 
shanek said:


The people already have representation, in the House. And bills must originate in the House. The Senate was there to get approval from the representatives of the state governments as well. Checks and balances.
Didn't John Adams get his ideas concerning checks and balances from the British, where it originated as a three way balance between the monarch, the aristocracy and the common folk (or the one, the few, and the many)?

James Madison intoned: "the Senate ought to come from, and represent, the Wealth of the nation."

So much for Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine...

As far as merely copying the British goes, well, times have changed.
 
I'm all for repealing the 17th Amendment exactly as Shanek has described, but how about we get the 10th Amendment enforced first?
 
Kodiak said:
I'm all for repealing the 17th Amendment exactly as Shanek has described, but how about we get the 10th Amendment enforced first?

Not that I want to go off on a tangent (yeah right... I never do that) but what is you would like to see w/r/t the 10th Amendment? Any specifics?
 
Kodiak said:
I'm all for repealing the 17th Amendment exactly as Shanek has described, but how about we get the 10th Amendment enforced first?

Believe me, I'm entirely open for ideas...
 
Suddenly said:


Not that I want to go off on a tangent (yeah right... I never do that) but what is you would like to see w/r/t the 10th Amendment? Any specifics?

Well...

In general, how about the Federal government discontinue, or turn over to the states, all programs and responsibilities not given to the three branches of Federal government by the Constitution and the laws created under its purview.

And because of the transgressions already made in defiance of the Tenth Amendment, we need another amendment or law (a lawyer or politician could clarify this better than I) requiring the Supreme Court to periodically review new and existing Federal laws and immediately, without the case having to first come to the court through another body and completely under its own constitutional authority, strike down any and all laws which are deemed by the Court as being unconstitutional. The Supreme Court could also be allowed to rule on a bill while it is still in Congress, in an effort to avoid wasting time and money.



Specifics? Give me some time and I'll try and make a list.
 
Frank Newgent cited:
James Madison intoned: "the Senate ought to come from, and represent, the Wealth of the nation."

I've been deeply worried by the inability of the wealthy to get representation in our modern government.

Time for the revolution, Up against the wall rabble!
 
Suddenly said:
Any specifics?

Here's one, for starters:

Federalizing state and local laws.

From the web article:
Federal law criminalizes nearly all robberies and schemes to de-fraud, many firearms offenses, all loan sharking, most illegal gambling operations, most briberies, every drug deal (regardless of the quantity involved), and many more crimes already addressed by state laws. Federal jurisdiction over essentially local crimes is contrary to the system of government envisioned by the Framers, under which Congress was to have only those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. When Congress legislates on matters such as the possession of guns in schools or the cultivation of marijuana in a closet, it makes a mockery of the 10th Amendment, which says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." As Chief Justice Rehnquist notes, "Federal courts were not created to adjudicate local crimes, no matter how sensational or heinous the crimes may be."
 
shanek said:


The people already have representation, in the House. And bills must originate in the House. The Senate was there to get approval from the representatives of the state governments as well. Checks and balances.

I might be forgetting my 8th grade civics lessons, but I thought that only appropriation bills needed to originate in the House.

Found it:
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Section. 7,Clause 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
 
Kodiak said:


Here's one, for starters:

Federalizing state and local laws.

From the web article:
Federal law criminalizes nearly all robberies and schemes to de-fraud, many firearms offenses, all loan sharking, most illegal gambling operations, most briberies, every drug deal (regardless of the quantity involved), and many more crimes already addressed by state laws. Federal jurisdiction over essentially local crimes is contrary to the system of government envisioned by the Framers, under which Congress was to have only those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. When Congress legislates on matters such as the possession of guns in schools or the cultivation of marijuana in a closet, it makes a mockery of the 10th Amendment, which says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." As Chief Justice Rehnquist notes, "Federal courts were not created to adjudicate local crimes, no matter how sensational or heinous the crimes may be."

So, I guess it is fair to narrow it down to the idea that the Constitution does not empower (perhaps more precisely "should not be read to empower") the Federal Government to adjudicate local crimes. This is a good example to illustrate why it appears many advocates of increased state power put inappropriate emphesis on the 10th Amendment.

First, a disclaimer. I actually agree with the Chief Justice as far as the above quote goes. I just don't think the 10th comes into it to any relevant degree.

Consider the text of the 10th:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
(emphesis added)

So, the 10th really doesn't change anything in the document, and just provides the principle that if it isn't mentioned in the constitution, then the Feds can't do it. However, given the supremacy clause, if the Feds can do it, they overrule the states.

The operative question thus is: Does the Constitution allow the Federal Government to adjudicate local crimes?

The unfortunate truth of the matter is that the courts read the commerce clause so broadly that the answer to the above is largely "yes" as far as the courts are concerned. Thus, since the power is delegated (it is an exercise of the interstate commerce power), we can't say the 10th is violated.

We can agree that this is an absurd reading of the commerce clause, but then we are no longer really saying it is the 10th Amendment being violated as much as we are contemplating the misapplication of the commerce clause. If the commerce power is not found to justify a partcular law (like in Lopez), the law is struck down. That keeps with the 10th Amendment.

To be fair, it is technically correct that the 10th Amendment is being violated whenever there is an unconstitutional Federal statute. The problem is that in order for the 10th to be violated there must be an unconstitutional use of power, and to prove that we need to examine the relevent constitutional provisions, if any. The 10th is a general principle, but saying it needs to be applied more doesn't really make sense as a call for a more restrictive reading of the Federal government's powers. Heightened attention to 10th amendment issues would simply mean invalidating laws with no Constitutional authority, and does not at all reflect on how the Constitution itself is interpreted.

It seems more precise to just say that the Constitution should be read more narrowly w/r/t the powers of the Federal government.
 
Suddenly said:


So, I guess it is fair to narrow it down to the idea that the Constitution does not empower (perhaps more precisely "should not be read to empower") the Federal Government to adjudicate local crimes. This is a good example to illustrate why it appears many advocates of increased state power put inappropriate emphesis on the 10th Amendment.

First, a disclaimer. I actually agree with the Chief Justice as far as the above quote goes. I just don't think the 10th comes into it to any relevant degree.

Consider the text of the 10th:

(emphesis added)

So, the 10th really doesn't change anything in the document, and just provides the principle that if it isn't mentioned in the constitution, then the Feds can't do it. However, given the supremacy clause, if the Feds can do it, they overrule the states.

The operative question thus is: Does the Constitution allow the Federal Government to adjudicate local crimes?

The unfortunate truth of the matter is that the courts read the commerce clause so broadly that the answer to the above is largely "yes" as far as the courts are concerned. Thus, since the power is delegated (it is an exercise of the interstate commerce power), we can't say the 10th is violated.

We can agree that this is an absurd reading of the commerce clause, but then we are no longer really saying it is the 10th Amendment being violated as much as we are contemplating the misapplication of the commerce clause. If the commerce power is not found to justify a partcular law (like in Lopez), the law is struck down. That keeps with the 10th Amendment.

To be fair, it is technically correct that the 10th Amendment is being violated whenever there is an unconstitutional Federal statute. The problem is that in order for the 10th to be violated there must be an unconstitutional use of power, and to prove that we need to examine the relevent constitutional provisions, if any. The 10th is a general principle, but saying it needs to be applied more doesn't really make sense as a call for a more restrictive reading of the Federal government's powers. Heightened attention to 10th amendment issues would simply mean invalidating laws with no Constitutional authority, and does not at all reflect on how the Constitution itself is interpreted.

It seems more precise to just say that the Constitution should be read more narrowly w/r/t the powers of the Federal government.

Agreed, and much better put, might I add...

Being a narrow/strict constructionist, I of course think the entire Constitution should be interpreted strictly/narrowly, not just the 10th Amendment "being enforced".
 
It seems counterintuitive to me that a Libertarian would be less favorable to the idea of people directly electing their Senators than to the idea of adding an additional governmental body to the process of electing Senators. :)

As for the 10th Amendment discussion between Kodiak and Suddenly, I couldn't help thinking about the Rodney King case and how the cops were acquitted locally, and so the feds stepped in and convicted them on federal charges.
 
Luke T. said:


As for the 10th Amendment discussion between Kodiak and Suddenly, I couldn't help thinking about the Rodney King case and how the cops were acquitted locally, and so the feds stepped in and convicted them on federal charges.

That's a little "seperate sovereign" dodge around double jeopardy mixed in with a strong dose of commerce clause b*llsh*t.

I'll bet you had no idea that when the officers were beating up King they were affecting interstate commerce. Live and learn.
 
specious_reasons said:
I might be forgetting my 8th grade civics lessons, but I thought that only appropriation bills needed to originate in the House.

You are correct; I goofed on that one.
 
Luke T. said:
It seems counterintuitive to me that a Libertarian would be less favorable to the idea of people directly electing their Senators than to the idea of adding an additional governmental body to the process of electing Senators.

Then you misunderstand Libertarianism.
 

Back
Top Bottom