Should the 17th amendment be eliminated.

[Little-Acorn]

Yes, the 17th should be repealed.

Senators were originally appointed by their state governments, so they would have loyalty to their state govt, and would vote against any proposed legislation that might take power from the States and transfer it to the Federal government.

And the 17th was proposed and pushed through, by people who didn't want such care to be taken - people who wanted more and more power transferred to the Federal govt. The same people who also pushed through the 16th amendment, to punish the rich and finance the coming government-uber-alles.

That year (1913) marked the real start of the explosion of government that continues to the present day.

High time to convert at least one house of govt (the Senate) back into being the watchdog against big-govt usurpation of states' powers. Even the corruption that went on during the appointment process, was a small price to pay for the security of knowing the big-govt fanatics were being stopped, as the Constitution required.

The Constitution gave the Fed govt only very limited powers. And it nailed the lid shut with the misnamed "Welfare clause", which is more appropriately called the "Equal spending" clause. It said that the Fed govt could only spend tax money on Defense, and on programs that benefitted all Americans equally, which is what "General Welfare' meant back in 1789. Naturally, it's one of the most-violated parts of the Constitution in our current big-govt frenzy.

A major function of the Senate was to make sure that this clause was obeyed. All programs that spent money on only part of the population, were required to be left to "the States, or the People".

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Yes, the 17th should be repealed.

Senators were originally appointed by their state governments, so they would have loyalty to their state govt, and would vote against any proposed legislation that might take power from the States and transfer it to the Federal government.

And the 17th was proposed and pushed through, by people who didn't want such care to be taken - people who wanted more and more power transferred to the Federal govt. The same people who also pushed through the 16th amendment, to punish the rich and finance the coming government-uber-alles.

That year (1913) marked the real start of the explosion of government that continues to the present day.

High time to convert at least one house of govt (the Senate) back into being the watchdog against big-govt usurpation of states' powers. Even the corruption that went on during the appointment process, was a small price to pay for the security of knowing the big-govt fanatics were being stopped, as the Constitution required.

The Constitution gave the Fed govt only very limited powers. And it nailed the lid shut with the misnamed "Welfare clause", which is more appropriately called the "Equal spending" clause. It said that the Fed govt could only spend tax money on Defense, and on programs that benefitted all Americans equally, which is what "General Welfare' meant back in 1789. Naturally, it's one of the most-violated parts of the Constitution in our current big-govt frenzy.

A major function of the Senate was to make sure that this clause was obeyed. All programs that spent money on only part of the population, were required to be left to "the States, or the People".

And somehow they are no longer loyal to the states they represent because it is the people of the states that now vote for their senators directly which requires a Senator to make sure the people in their state are happy with their actions, thus forcing a Senator to be loyal to the state they represent.

[Roadking2003]

I would much rather have a one term limit. Then follow that with the complete eradication of federal revenue sharing.