So long as we're talking about tinkering with the mechanisms of government, consider this argument for repeal of the 17th Amendment by FOX News' "The Judge", Andrew Napolitano.
The 17th Amendment, passed in 1913, is the one that authorized the direct popular election of US Senators and, as Napolitano points out, it came with a cost.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The 17th amendment should be repealed. It's transformed the Senate into the equivalent of the House, except with whiter teeth and more television make-up. It's no accident that the glory days of the Senate were in the 19th century (Webster, Clay, Calhoun) -- now we've got Franken, Boxer, and Schumer, publicity hounds with no sense of history or any semblance of statesmanship.
ReplyDeleteYou, me, and Napolitano make three. Gotta start somewhere.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing the 17th does is sever the link between state legislators and the national government. When voting for a state rep one had to consider how that person might vote for a senator and thus think about the great national and international issues a senator deals with. This connection might lead to more disciplined parties, but it also might produce other thoughts and ambitions as well.
ReplyDeleteIt's more than just three; there's lots of us out here. Check out my weblog "Repeal the 17th Amendment," and there you will find daily information about the 17th Amendment, the repeal movement, which is small right now, and the shenanigans in the US Senate.
ReplyDelete(http://repealthe17thamendment.blogspot.com/)
Thanks Brian, I will check it out.
ReplyDelete