Comments on: On Repealing the 17th Amendment Part I: Agreement

By: Andrew Ian Dodge: Republican Establishment Turns Machine on the Grassroots : freedomluchador.com

Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:47:06 +0000

[...] Senate candidates. This might just steer even more conservative and liberty activists towards campaign to repeal the 17th amendment and give the job of selecting a Senator back to the state [...]

By: Hey Journalists: Stop Asking Relevant Questions « economicharmonies

Hey Journalists: Stop Asking Relevant Questions « economicharmonies — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 06:21:07 +0000

[...] Alex Seitz-Wald, in an article about so-called Sandy Hook Truthers. Seitz-Wald, whom I’ve criticized before, opens with this: “Journalists are supposed to question official accounts and probe for [...]

By: On Repealing the 17th Amendment Part I: Agreement – Florida Tenth Amendment Center

Sat, 01 Sep 2012 03:36:29 +0000

[...] State * Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Close Brevard County ChapterWelcome to the Bevard County, FL Tenth Amendment Center Tenth Amendment Center Main FeedOn Repealing the 17th Amendment Part II: DissentA Message to The RevolutionThere’s Much More than just the Federalist PapersNetwork, Organize and Take overOn Repealing the 17th Amendment Part I: Agreement [...]

By: On Repealing the 17th Amendment Part II: Dissent | GrassrootsHeadlines.com

On Repealing the 17th Amendment Part II: Dissent | GrassrootsHeadlines.com — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:17:38 +0000

[...] Part I, I summarized the argument over repealing the 17th Amendment, explained the benefits of doing so in terms of [...]

By: On Repealing the 17th Amendment Part II: Dissent – Tenth Amendment Center

On Repealing the 17th Amendment Part II: Dissent – Tenth Amendment Center — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:31:26 +0000

[...] s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })(); Share on Tumblr In Part I, I summarized the argument over repealing the 17th Amendment, explained the benefits of doing so in terms of [...]

By: onetenther

onetenther — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:36:05 +0000

@Monorprise Some provision can be added that the legislators can temporarily choose someone to fill in the void or perhaps have no one in the void until the next election.

By: onetenther

onetenther — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:34:43 +0000

@Monorprise I was talking about having the legislator themselves having the power to recall them with a majority vote of their own legislative bodies. I wasn’t talking about the voters doing it.

By: Monorprise

Monorprise — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 05:32:30 +0000

@onetenther I don’t think such a requirement could be imposed any better than the already existing requirement writen in the Federal Constitution to that same effect.

The States that held elected senators before the 17th amendment did so somewhat “under the legal table” if you will.

By: Monorprise

Monorprise — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 05:29:44 +0000

@onetenther
I like and would support the idea, but the cost of holding an election is extordary. To recall senators imply that the state would then have to hold an expensive special election to replace them.(expending both money and voter fatigue)
That is of course unless you are going to let the governor or leglsator elect their replacement, in which case your talking about repealing the 17th anyway.

By: Monorprise

Monorprise — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 05:21:54 +0000

I of course agree with repealing the 17th amedment for all the reasons you gave, but your rebutle of Salon’s weak attack upon the idea was most insitefull.

I do however think much more could be said about the corruption of the senate after the 17th amendment than before. Not that the issue of mere corruption of officers should ever be thought to justify the effective abolition of their vital constitutional function. Such an idea is of course akin to foolish practice of curing the disease by killing the patient.