Repeal the 17th amendment

http://www.articlev.com/repeal_the_17...

REPEAL THE 17^TH AMENDMENT

By

John MacMullin

After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the federal government announced that it would preempt all state jurisdiction over airport security.  The federal government preempted state powers without regard to balancing federal and state responsibilities so that these responsibilities, and related costs, could be distributed across federal, state, and local governments.  To carry out this preemption, the federal government recently reported that it will employ more than 47,000 federal recruits in the fight against terrorism as newly trained security screeners.  They are to begin working at 424 airports nationwide. 

These developments, and numerous others in the past, remind us that there are no checks and balances available to the states over federal power or over Congress itself in any area.  However, in the history of our country, it was not always this way. In the original design by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, there was an effective check on Congress through the state legislatures' power to appoint (and remove) United States Senators.

As such, the core of the problem with federal preemption lies in the passage of the 17^th Amendment which abrogated the state legislatures' right to appoint United States Senators in favor of popular election of those officials.  This amendment created a fundamental structural problem which, irrespective of the political party in office, or the laws in effect at any one time, will result, over time, in expanding federal control in every area.  In addition to preemption issues, it caused a failure in the federalist structure, federal deficit spending, inappropriate federal mandates, and federal control over a number of state institutions. 

The amendment also caused a fundamental breakdown in campaign finance issues with respect to United States Senators.  As to United States Senators, campaign finance reform, which has been a hot topic in Congress, can be best achieved by repealing the 17^th Amendment to the United States Constitution.  It should be readily apparent that United States Senators, once appointed by the state legislature, would have no need for campaign financing whatsoever. 

      The reason for the passage of the 17^th Amendment should be stated.  The 17^th Amendment was passed because of a procedural problem in the original concept and not because of a need to alter the balance of power.  The procedural problem consisted of frequent deadlocks when the state legislatures were trying to select a senator.  When deadlocked, a state would go without representation in the Senate.  For instance, in the very first Congress, the State of New York went without representation in the Senate for three months.  Additionally, numerous other problems resulted from the efforts to resolve individual deadlocks.  The problem of deadlocked legislatures continued unabated from 1787 until 1913.  The 17^th amendment, calling for popular election of senators, fixed the procedural problems, but also inappropriately and unintentionally altered the balance of power.  Instead, the 17^th Amendment should have fixed the procedural problems and left the balance of power between the states and the federal government intact.

      The 17^th Amendment should be repealed. This would reinstate the states' linkage to the federal political process and would, thereby, have the effect of elevating the present status of the state legislatures from that of lobbyists, to that of a partner in the federal political process.  The state legislatures would then have the ability to decentralize power when appropriate.  It would give state legislatures direct influence over the selection of federal judges and the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary and much greater ability to modify the power of the federal judiciary.  This structure would allow the flow of power between the states and the federal government to ebb and flow as the needs of our federal republic change. Figure A below portrays the existing relationship be­tween the states and the federal government.  This relationship, combined with the effect of the Supremacy Clause, is guaranteed to concentrate power into the hands of the federal government with little hope of return. 

 

      With the passage of the following proposed amendment, the state legislatures would have the ability to decentralize power when appropriate.  After passage, it would primarily be the state legislatures interacting with their appointed senators, and not with the other branches of the federal government, that would establish the "line" be­tween the federal and state governments.  Figure B shows the effect of the passage of the proposed amendment on the relationship be­tween the governments.  This structure allows the flow of power between the states and the federal government to ebb and flow as the needs of our federal republic change.  This structure also exemplifies the original concept of the Framers of the Constitution.  

 

 

A proposed resolution and amendment to the U.S. Constitution, designed to repeal the 17^th Amendment and fix the procedural problems, follows:

RESOLUTION

A Joint Resolution of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the State of ___________ to declare as defective the current process of choosing Senators for the United States Senate; to request that Congress transmit for consideration by states of the United States a new amendment that repeals the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution and provides for state legislatures to elect members of the United States Senate and creates liaison committees; informing the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and each Member of the State's Congressional Delegation of the request for repeal of the 17^th amendment and submission of a new amendment to the United States Constitution.

WHEREAS, the Founding Fathers came to a great compromise at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and provided for proportional representation in the House of Representatives of the United States and equal representation for the states in the Senate of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the Founding Fathers determined that equal representation of the states in the Senate of the United States recognized the individual sovereignty of each state; and

WHEREAS, Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, Number 27, concluded that because the legislatures were select bodies of men, the choice of United States Senators would generally be made with peculiar care and judgment by the legislatures, a selection process originally provided for in Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment declared a division of authority between the states and the United States and was for the first 140 years of this nation invoked by the Supreme Court of the United States as a constitutional limit of congressional power as against the powers of the several states; and

WHEREAS, the election of the United States Senators by the state legislatures was the political mechanism against congressional encroachment into the sovereignty of the states; and

WHEREAS, one of the essential aspects of the states' exercise of this political mechanism is the United States Senate's advice and consent for treaties and appointments of executive and judicial officers made by the President of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 changed the election of the United States Senators from the state legislatures to the popular vote of the people of the states, thereby divesting the states of any direct voice in the federal government; and

WHEREAS, due to the differing modes of representation and election in the House and the Senate prior to 1913, each branch provided a balance of legislative power against, and an independent check upon, the other; and

WHEREAS, prior to 1913 history reveals that in choosing their Senators, the individual state legislatures supported the federal government, thereby providing harmony between the governments of the states and the government of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States has, since the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendments, steadily encroached upon the sovereignty of this and the other states united by and under the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, a Senator's general responsibility is to represent state government and the state legislature; and

WHEREAS, since not all state legislatures are in session when the United States Congress is in session, a method is required for keeping states informed when critical federal action is taking place and providing states with a role for reviewing federal legislation and treaties and for defining each state legislature's relationship to the appointed senators; and

WHEREAS, the state legislature has a role in compelling accountability from United States Senators; and

WHEREAS, a state has the right to prescribe its own procedures regarding the selection process for United States Senators, including appointments in the case of deadlock.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF ___________:

(1) That the Legislature of this State finds and declares to be defective the current process of electing United States Senators by the popular vote of the people which fails to represent the interests of the individual states.

(2) That the Secretary of this State transmit certified copies of this Resolution to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and each Member of this State's Congressional Delegation.

(3) That the Congress, in accordance with Article V of the Constitution of the United States, immediately transmit to the several states for ratification the amendment to the United States Constitution, as described in subsection (4), repealing the Seventeenth Amendment and resolving the procedural problems, particularly the problem of the deadlocked state legislature, inherent in the original concept:

(4) The amendment reads as follows:

An Amendment to Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment

and Re-link the States to the Federal Political Process.

Section One.  The Seventeenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section Two.  The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, selected by the legislature of each State.  Each Senator shall serve a six-year term and may be re-appointed.  Each Senator shall have one vote. 

Comment:  This section is intended to place the power of selection back in the hands of the state legislature.

Section Three.  Among the duties of each Senator is the primary duty to represent the government of their State, and in particular, their State's Legislature, in the Senate.  For the purpose of maintaining communications with its Senators, each State Legislature shall establish a liaison committee and shall specify the duties, procedures, and method of appointment of that committee.  This committee shall work with its United States Senators in evaluating the impact of federal legislation on their State.  All legislation proposed by Congress, and all treaties proposed, shall be submitted to each State's liaison committee.

Comment: This section describes a Senator's general responsibility for representing their state government and state legislature.  This section also requires that each state establish a liaison committee.  This committee is intended as a communications link and advisory body to the state legislature and not as a decision-maker for the state legislature.  It should function during periods when the state legislature is not in session so those legislators can be alerted when critical federal action is taking place.  Depending on the state, the committee may be made up of state legislators alone or, if so desired, could also be made up of legislators, members of the state's executive and judicial branches, and non-governmental members. Another objective of this provision is to allow each state legislature to define the relationship with their appointed senators.  It also requires the committee to be given notice of proposed federal legislation and treaties.  Thus, it addresses the holding of South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988), in which the Supreme Court held that in order in invalidate an act of Congress the states would have to show that the federal political process operated in a defective manner.  Thus, a failure to submit proposed legislation and treaties to a state's liaison committee constitutes a failure in the political process.

Section Four.  Senators are subject to removal by the State Legislature.  Removal of a Senator requires a majority of each House of the State Legislature.

Comment:  This section allows the state legislature to compel accountability from Senators.  A voting majority is specified in order to preclude a federal court's imposition of a super-majority.

Section Five.  Congress is precluded from enacting any legislation affecting the senatorial selection process.  Each State Legislature shall enact rules and procedures, consistent with this amendment, related to the selection and removal of Senators. A State Legislature may implement a selection procedure whereby the State Legislature selects a Senator by a plurality vote rather than a majority.  If a State Legislature fails to enact a selection procedure, then the State Legislature shall sit as a single body and shall select a Senator by a plurality vote.  Irrespective of the procedures followed by the State Legislature, if the State Legislature does not choose a Senator within thirty days after a vacancy, the Governor of the State shall select the Senator.

Comment: This section gives each state the power to prescribe their own procedures and enact rules or legislation if other problems arise in the selection process.  This would allow each state to solve its own procedural problems as they occurred.  It also provides a default procedure in the event that a state does not choose a method.  In the event of a deadlock, the Governor can break the deadlock.  This would avoid all of the problems that occurred in the original concept.  The plurality power is specified to assure that a federal court does not impose a majority vote.  This section is not intended to lock a particular method in place, except as a default.  For instance, a state legislature may choose to keep popular election and then validate the results of the election.  Additionally, the state could choose a merit selection method by which a slate of names are submitted to the governor for selection.  Alternatively, each house of the state legislature could choose a Senator, each by a different means.  Successive elections until a majority is achieved could be implemented.  Again, it is intended by this section to allow variability in the selection process limited only by the requirement that the selection be completed within thirty days.  This should eliminate the deadlock issue.

Section Six.  This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. All state legislative proceedings, including, but not limited to, those concerning the liaison committee, procedural issues, and the selection and removal of a Senator are open to the public.  The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislatures.

Comment:  This section allows for the phase-out of popular election.  It also provides for open meetings as to any procedural and selection proceedings to promote public involvement in the process.  This amendment is not intended to impact elector issues.

     

 

John MacMullin (john.macmullin@cox.net) practices law in Phoenix, Arizona. He has written extensively in the law literature on the 17th Amendment. See MacMullin J., "Amplifying the Tenth Amendment," 31 Ariz.L.R. 915 (1989).

 For questions or comments contact Repeal17@ArticleV.com

 

---

If I read the article correctly , the 17th ammendment short circuits states rights basically ?

---

Yep... Something the federal government has been trying to do by one means or another, almost from the beginning of the republic.

---

Then if something isn't done to correct the issue , Europe might not have the only country called Georgia pretty soon ? And California might become one of the wealthiest countries in the world ? And Arnold could fianally realize his dream of becoming president ?

---

bob graham las vegas said: Then if something isn't done to correct the issue , Europe might not have the only country called Georgia pretty soon ? And California might become one of the wealthiest countries in the world ? And Arnold could fianally realize his dream of becoming president ?

 

What exactly do you mean by this?  This is how our nation was founded.  Each individual state was essentially equivalent to its own sovereign nation.  There was simply a very loose federal government under the Articles of Confederation.  

If Vermont succeeds to secede, I'm moving to Vermont!  Too bad some of the good states can't secede though like TX or FL.  

---

Paging Employers Employers.....

I thought you would've chimed on on this topic by now?

---

RonPaul08 said:

Paging Employers Employers.....

I thought you would've chimed on on this topic by now?

 

Sorry!  I've been pretty busy lately, and luckily I visited the site to be surprised by your post.

I did post to another forum recently, and said the following.  The amnesty proposals by the Senate, and their total disregard for the negative public reaction to their direction has highlighted the change in the balance of power that was created by the 17th Amendment.  Unfortunately, many view popular election of Senators as a positive thing, when in fact it makes them less responsive to the public will.  The reason for this is that, since the 17ths enactment, it has become impossible to remove a Senator (Ted Kennedy is a prime example).  The State Legislators, which only have 2 year terms, have to prove to their constituents that they are worthy of re-election over that short period of time.  But they formerly had the power to remove Senators, if they were way out of line with the public will, which is what we have today.  And, of course, they appointed their Senators in the first place, which was another matter for the public to pass judgement on if the one(s) they picked had no public support.

What bothers me most about the current public debate, is all the energy the citizenry is having to put into getting this renegade body of government to recognize they are wrong on amnesty, as they have been on many other things in the past.  Also, Bush's stance on illegal immigration would be far different if he knew he couldn't be backed by them.  While it is true that "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance", it comes at a price, which, as I mentioned, is the inordinate amount of time being spent trying to get our legislators to listen, and to follow the course we feel is best.

What needs to happen now, until any further changes are made to public law on illegal alien employers, is to enforce IRCA 1986.  Employers have been able to make excuses for hiring them, when they knew full well these workers were illegal.  That, in itself, is a violation of IRCA 1986.  Furthermore, that law specified that it is the President's duty to address any shortcomings in the identification process, which Bush chooses to ignore.

I'm going to copy next the 2 paragraphs that are the most flagrant violations by employers and failure by the government to perform its mandate.  Although my "signature" gives this link (below) it appears noone is utilizing this link to become informed, so I guess I'll have to do it the hard way and post it up front.

---

 

IRCA 1986

"(2) CONTINUING EMPLOYMENT. -- It is unlawful for a person or other entity, after hiring an alien for employment in accordance with paragraph (1), to continue to employ the alien in the United States knowing the alien is (or has become) an unauthorized alien with respect to such employment.

"(3) DEFENSE. -- A person or entity that establishes that it has complied in good faith with the requirements of subsection (b) with respect to the hiring, recruiting, or referral for employment of an alien in the United States has established an affirmative defense that the person or entity has not violated paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such hiring, recruiting, or referral.

---

The penalties are as follows:

"(i) not less than $250 and not more than $2,000 for each unauthorized alien with respect to whom a violation of either such subsection occurred,

"(ii) not less than $2,000 and not more than $5,000 for each such alien in the case of a person or entity previously subject to one order under this subparagraph, or

"(iii) not less than $3,000 and not more than $10,000 for each such alien in the case of a person or entity previously subject to more than one order under this subparagraph; and..

There are additional violations specified with monetary penalties.

---

The following specifies the President's duties, if the system does not fulfill the requirements of employment verification:

"(1) PRESIDENTIAL MONITORING AND IMPROVEMENTS IN SYSTEM. --

"(A) MONITORING. -- The President shall provide for the monitoring and evaluation of the degree to which the employment verification system established under subsection (b) provides a secure system to determine employment eligibility in the United States and shall examine the suitability of existing Federal and State identification systems for use for this purpose.

"(B) IMPROVEMENTS TO ESTABLISH SECURE SYSTEM. -- To the extent that the system established under subsection (b) is found not to be a secure system to determine employment eligibility in the United States, the President shall, subject to paragraph (3) and taking into account the results of any demonstration projects conducted under paragraph (4), implement such changes in (including additions to) the requirements of subsection (b) as may be necessary to establish a secure system to determine employment eligibility in the United States. Such changes in the system may be implemented only if the changes conform to the requirements of paragraph (2).

"(2) RESTRICTIONS ON CHANGES IN SYSTEM. -- Any change the President proposes to implement under paragraph (1) in the verification system must be designed in a manner so the verification system, as so changed, meets the following requirements:

"(A) RELIABLE DETERMINATION OF IDENTITY. -- The system must be capable of reliably determining whether --

"(i) a person with the identity claimed by an employee or prospective employee is eligible to work, and

"(ii) the employee or prospective employee is claiming the identity of another individual.

"(B) USING OF COUNTERFEIT-RESISTANT DOCUMENTS. -- If the system requires that a document be presented to or examined by an employer, the document must be in a form which is resistant to counterfeiting and tampering.

---

As you can see, this President has thumbed his nose at this law for his whole time in office.  We need to have the 17th Amendment repealed, especially for the egregious disregard of the provisions of this law, as well as to consider the impeachment of Bush for refusing to uphold it.

---

RonPaul08,

I must say the response to your post is very disappointing.  The average citizen doesn't understand the importance of ridding ourselves of the 17th.

John MacMullin's solution to replace the 17th, thereby fixing the structural problem of the relationship between the states and the Federal Government, makes perfect sense.  It will cure the Senate's attitude of disconnection with the states they are supposed to represent.

His solution to have the Governors of their States appoint Senators if a logjam occurs and the State Legislature, for whatever reason, does not confirm their Senators, appears to be a fix with no problems.

But then we have people like "Patsy", who think there is some magic in popularly electing Senators that makes that choice a superior one.  Can't she, and others, see what is going on today with the Amnesty proposals the Senate is trying to foist on us, along with President Bush?  The State Legislators would very quickly be the ones to receive all the "heat" over employment fraud, vis-a-vis illegal aliens, if Senators were appointed by State Legislatures, and our current Senate would have their offices locked while the State Legislatures very quickly had them replaced.  If this isn't fixed, and soon, we are all in for some VERY bad times.

---

Employers,

It's not disappointing, this topic has 88 reads.  If it only had one (from someone other than us) that too would mean a success.  

The repeal of the 17th amendment is going to take a grassroots effort to accomplish.  Just like the repeal of the Income Tax Code/IRS along with the 16th amendment which has been building since 1995 with the FairTax plan, and just like the abolishing of the Federal Reserve will also take.  Grassroots efforts have accomplished amazing things throughout history including our Declaration of Independance.  Don't be discouraged.  

We would not have www.FairTax.org if those 3 individuals who were so fed up with our tax code did not finally decide to do something about it.  The problem I see, is that there is no centralized organization with the single goal of educating the masses and repealing the 17th amendment.  Perhaps this is something you could look into???  

I think most people will understand the benefit of this repeal with a small bit of education.  Even with the FairTax, their initial focus groups showed that only 25% of the individuals supported the FairTax plan when initially briefed on simply what the plan does.  After further education and understanding of the FairTax proposal (and naturally what our Income Tax is really costing us) than that number shoots up to a 75% approval rating of the plan.

Patsy is probably along with the majority on this one where they cannot see the benefit in giving rightful representation back to the states.  However, hopefully after reading the first article above that articulates this very well, she would not be that one out of 4 persons that STILL does not support it.  Perhaps she will, there will always be Patsy's out there Employers.  You just ignore them and move on towards the people that have the capability to change their minds and are willing to listen.

Heck even if you just think about this, it kinda leads you right towards the repeal of the 17th.  Before I really took the red pill, opened my eyes, emancipated myself from the 2 party mess, I wondered what the point was of the Senate and/or the House was since we both vote for them.  It just didn't really make much sense.  It didn't play into the separation of powers because they were both legislators.  When I discovered that the purpose of the Senate was to have representation of the STATES, and that states originally elected senators, then it all made perfect sense to me.  I didn't anymore convincing because it just made sense.  

This seems to be your #1 priority employers, and that's good, because we DO need a FairTax.org type of organization for this issue and maybe you will start this.  Though I would say this issue is probably one of my Top 3 overall.  Immediate priorities always have to be on a sliding scale as we saw with the amnesty bill but overall this issue, replacing the Federal Reserve with sound monetary policy, and repealing the Income Tax via the FairTax are vital to this nation.  The way I see it, Ron Paul inside the Oval Office is the ONLY way any of these things will come to fruition.   

---

RonPaul08 said:  ...The way I see it, Ron Paul inside the Oval Office is the ONLY way any of these things will come to fruition.   

Unfortunately, the multimegawatt mouthpieces of the electromagnetic spectrum only seeim to have desparaging remarks to make about Ron Paul.  They are a bunch of jerks, as far as I am concerned.  While they follow some of the public will for change, they don't support people that would effect the change, such as Ron Paul.  Tom Tancredo is another one that they seem to support, but when push comes to shove, they ditch him as well.  It is so difficult for we, the public, to get unabashed support for individuals like Ron Paul, that I fear for the outcome, since it would appear all of them are more interested in their own advancement than they are for the advancement of winning stratagies and people who would suppor those strategies.

I've been thinking of starting a new thread.  It would go something like this, as far as the way it is titled, "The Evil Empire-the U. S. Senate, and the 17th Amendment".

As I've previously stated, I don't see how any of the important changes to our Republic can be made unless the root causes of the disease that infects it are attacked.  How can we rid ourselves of the Federal Reserve, when sure as night follows day, the U. S. Senate will pull out all the stops to defeat any such movement?  How can we rid ourselves of the Income Tax if they do likewise?  How can we ever return to a gold standard for the same reason?

The U. S. Senate has become a fiefdom that holds sway over all of us.  They don't care WHAT we think or wish.  They will only do, in general, what increases their power, which currently seems to be the wishes of slave dependent EMPLOYERS to ram through an amnesty proposal.  It takes tremendous outpouring of negativity to their direction for them to even take notice.  And when they do take notice, it is to further consider restrictions on free speech, such as their current attacks on talk radio, vis-a-vis the "fairness doctrine".

The above reasons are why the 17th needs to be repealed, with the excellent recommendations of John MacMullin.

---

The US Senate and the US House of Rep is ALMOST no longer neccessary. If Bush succeeeds and SPP is instituted by NACC, Congress is obsolete and will eventually be abolished. The reason the Amnisty bill ALMOST succeeded was the shadow government of the NAU (North American Union) has set their agenda and open borders are one of their goals for 2007. They have more policies in line for 2008. So which candidates subscribe to the SPP? Clinton, obviously and most of the current Republicans running since NAU has been running since Bush was elected the first time. So, besides Hillary does Obama tow the NAU line? It seems he does since he is also part of the current government. I don't believe Newt, if he runs will put up with the NAU. But if Thompson runs and he has a chance, Newt will not run. So what does Thompson say on the NAU? Beats me but our sovereignty is slipping away under arguments about fining employers, defending/protesting the wars overseas and many other issues, while important, pale in the light of no longer having the freedom of a soveriegn country.

a12iggymom said: ...our sovereignty is slipping away under arguments about fining employers, defending/protesting the wars overseas and many other issues, while important, pale in the light of no longer having the freedom of a soveriegn country...

OK.  But what are your solutions?  It seems you are saying to hold out the hope that we'll get a new President that will stand firm in abolishing consideration of the North American Union.

The problem, as seen by some of us, is that the Senate, and the current President, are always standing in the way of sovereignty.  If the states had the say they should in the overall direction of their affairs, as originally stipulated in Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution, Senators could not stand in the way of the overwhelming oppositon to the NAU and the SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership).  The result of their opposition, under current poling data, would suggest their removal from office.

As for your downplaying the importance of fining (and also jailing) employers, I believe the current Governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, would disagree with your position.  Already many illegal aliens are leaving Arizona because of the sanctions on employers.  Doesn't that improve the outlook for sovereignty, at least in the Arizona Area?

---

Hold your politicians accountable to the letter of the law , and make them do likewise to the Executive Branch . It is going to take more than one new president to undo what the current one has done . It has to start somewhere or maybe we need to breakup into fifty countries like the USSR did ?

---

Okay, I will have to research this.  I had no idea that Senators were appointed prior to the 17th.  How were the positions in the House filled?

crystalprincess said: Okay, I will have to research this.  I had no idea that Senators were appointed prior to the 17th.  How were the positions in the House filled?

 

crystal,

It's right in the Constitution.  Did you read the article above as well?  Very good explanation of this process and why it was necessary for our Constitutional Republic of United STATES.  

The member sof the House were elected the same way they are today.  These were the representatives of the people.  

---

I am all for it if it matters , my comments at top or middle meant that if California did in fact secede and become a country as opposed to being a state Arnold might well be president of California . I knew of employment laws since 1986 and McKesson Corp. spent time and money to educate all Managers in this law . I have also always fostered at the bare minimum term limits and an easy avenue to removal of rhe rotten apples . To go back to the State being the immediate supervisor of these officials would be like a good ole teenage wet dream !

---

What about the electoral college , don't you think this dinosaur should be in a tar pit somewhere ?

---

bob graham las vegas said: What about the electoral college , don't you think this dinosaur should be in a tar pit somewhere ?

 

Bob,

From what I know of you already from here I would say that I think you posted this with sarcasm, is this correct?  

I will comment on this anyways since there are people here who think the above.  

I personally think it would be advantageous to go back to the Constitutional method of electing the president where we would vote on ELECTORS for specific candidates, and the electors were the ones who would campaign.  

Now our electors are simply rubber stamps for the candidate.  If we vote on an elector we know the integrity and principles of this individual, and we are voting for a leader whom we trust to vote for the right candidate.  Obviously we pick the elector who represents the candidate, however these electors would be much more likely to change their vote let's say IF something about the presidential candidate became known late in the campaign season or after the general election.  This is how republics work where the power does not directly lie within simple majorities.   

Though if we're going back to something we ideally should scrap the Constitution and revert back to the Articles of Confederation (AoC) which were all that were really necessary. 

---

It wasn't sarcasm , in the past, popular vote has chosen one candidate and the electoral put another in office . This is upsetting to most when it happens . And votes can be changed for reasons other than the general good of the public.

---

For an additional account by legal scholars on why the 17th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution should be repealed, please follow this link:

http://mason.gmu.edu/~tzywick2/Cleveland%20State%20Senators.pdf

Since it has become clearer with the passage of time what the destructive nature of the 17th has been, discovery on the Internet of many other links calling for its repeal have been discovered.

While John MacMullin states that it was procedural issues that led to the 17th, many others have discovered that there was intent to create this unresponsive branch of the U. S. Government in order to be answerable to special interest groups.  This makes a lot of sense from what is currently observable in the way the Senate has become disconnected from the electorate, and does, in fact, almost solely react to the wishes of special interest groups.

There are a number of State Legislatures that have started movements to have this Amendment repealed.  Among them are Utah and Montana.  There is also a movement in some of these states to defy the stipulations for popular election of U. S. Senators, and to appoint them, which would push the issue into the forefront.

Additionally, there are claims that the 17th was never properly ratified, as stated by William Jennings Bryant, who, at the time of "ratification", was the person in charge of seeing to it that the States followed the U. S. Constitution in the ratification process,  and gave his findings to the Congress.

---