# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  HELP with the 17th Amendment

## jscottw8

Recently on Twitter, I was not able to argue my standpoint concerning the 17th Amendment and why I feel it should be repealed. I watched a great video by Judge Napolitano on how he thought it was unconstitutional.

Basically, I need your help to better understand why the 17th Amendment is so detrimental to our State's sovereignty. Teach me! A lot of you guys are REALLY smart. I have faith in you. I just want to be able to win a debate.

----------


## jscottw8

Also, are there any books covering this topic?

----------


## jkr

ahhh, the bill of WRONGS...

----------


## Superfluous Man

Check out this book.

I haven't read it, but here's a positive review of it from a source that I trust.

----------


## specsaregood

twitter isn't exactly an ideal platform for making such complex arguments; its a platform made for memes, platitudes, and insults.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Popular elections should be illegal?  

https://constitutioncenter.org/inter...amendment-xvii




> Amendment XVII
> POPULAR ELECTION OF SENATORS
> Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913. The 17th Amendment changed a portion of Article I, Section 3
> 
> The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
> 
> When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
> 
> This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> I watched a great video by Judge Napolitano on how he thought it was unconstitutional.


Napolitano is wrong.  A constitutional amendment can't be unconstitutional simply because it changes something in the original constitution.  It may be a bad idea, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Keep in mind that the amendment was ratified by the legislatures of 41 of the 48 states that existed at that time, so they apparently didn't see a problem in giving up their power to appoint senators.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Popular elections should be illegal?  
> 
> https://constitutioncenter.org/inter...amendment-xvii


Yes they should.

But repealing the 17th Amendment wouldn't make them illegal in general. It would only remove them in the case of the Senate. Representatives in the House would still be elected by popular election, while the Senators would be elected by the state governments, thus resulting in the House and Senate (in theory) representing two different constituencies, rather than both representing the same one.

----------


## specsaregood

when gunnyfreedom was running for office and a local paper attacked him for his support for repealing the 17th amendment, I felt he had a pretty darn good reply.

https://www.redstate.com/diary/freed...-shot-at-glen/

----------


## jscottw8

> Napolitano is wrong.  A constitutional amendment can't be unconstitutional simply because it changes something in the original constitution.  It may be a bad idea, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.
> 
> Keep in mind that the amendment was ratified by the legislatures of 41 of the 48 states that existed at that time, so they apparently didn't see a problem in giving up their power to appoint senators.


That's not the point of the video. I was talking about the content, not the title. I understand what your saying though.

----------


## Zippyjuan

One of the original ideas for the Constitution was a sort of pyramid of elites. Only land owning men (wealthy) could vote.  This group of elites would choose the leaders in their own states.  They in turn would pick two Senators to represent them in the national government.  And from this more elite group would come the President.

----------


## specsaregood

> One of the original ideas for the Constitution was a sort of pyramid of elites. Only land owning men (wealthy) could vote.  This group of elites would choose the leaders in their own states.  They in turn would pick two Senators to represent them in the national government.  And from this more elite group would come the President.


And now that we have gotten away from that, nearly 50% of the public doesn't pay anything in taxes, the government is the largest employer, and the rest of us support them all via theft and debt.   hurrah for progress!

----------


## jscottw8

> when gunnyfreedom was running for office and a local paper attacked him for his support for repealing the 17th amendment, I felt he had a pretty darn good reply.
> 
> https://www.redstate.com/diary/freed...-shot-at-glen/


This was a good article. Thank you.

----------


## jscottw8

"The whole purpose of the state legislatures sending senators to Washington, was to make sure Congress wouldn't take power away from the states. The states would be a check on the ever expanding Congress, but when the Constitution was changed and the people in the states, as opposed to state legislatures, started sending senators, they started stealing power from the states for Congress and themselves. And we ended up with this monster gov't with the states having very little power left."

That's like the closest I've gotten to understanding it. I was hoping you guys had more insight. I feel like it was a way for the States to have a hedge against the Federal Gov't. A State Gov't vs. Federal Gov't situation, if you will.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> One of the original ideas for the Constitution was a sort of pyramid of elites. Only land owning men (wealthy) could vote.  This group of elites would choose the leaders in their own states.  They in turn would pick two Senators to represent them in the national government.  And from this more elite group would come the President.


All forms of the state are ultimately constituted by rule of the elite. This is the Iron Law of Oligarchy.

But within that given, some systems are worse than others.

And I don't accept the premise that majority rule is necessarily morally preferable to minority rule. What can be done with that rule is far more important. And something like the 17th Amendment, which makes it harder to pass new laws, provides a good check against the tyranny of democracy.

----------


## 106459

Yeah, so, this is actually a pretty important topic that has historical significance. There is a reason why we chose to break the legislature into two houses, and call senators 'statesmen' and why the House of Reps is supposed to be the "People's house" where spending bills have to originate from.

And the passing of the 17th amendment is probably a very good reason why so many people love to call us a democracy when we're really not (ctrl+f the Constitution, the word doesn't exist). In my mind it's a big factor as to why government is such a big problem today.

People have decided to become in love with 'democracy', which is a terrible form of government. Read what the founders had to say about democracy. It was not positive. James Madison: "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Democracies * don't*  care about your rights. They don't exist. You're nothing to the 51%. There are no overarching ideals of freedom and liberty, there is only the whim of the majority sentiment.

Republics are supposed to be institutions of order, where we can write a Constitution, find certain inalienable rights self-evident, not granted to us by the majority or some government, but * by our creator.*  * I don't care*  if you don't think I shouldn't have a right to defend myself. Have 99% of people vote against it. * It's not your right to take away.* 

The idea was for a limited federal government. One that protects your inalienable rights, and provides for the nation's defense. That's it. The Senate and the House were * supposed*  to be pitted against each other because we already had the Constitution, and the federal government should be doing relatively little -- if the States and People can agree - then great. If not, then why aren't the States doing it? Why does the federal government need to do everything?

You can probably attribute a good bit of blame on this to our current debt/deficit issue. You have too much compromise in the federal government currently, with spending. Big welfare Democrats get together with big warfare Republicans, and they agree to spend a ton more money. Why not?

And again, we need to move away from this "democracy is great" which translates into have everyone vote and make the federal government * do something!!!*  -Well, Trump got elected in 2016. Left boot, meet right boot. How long do we want to keep marching?

----------


## jscottw8

> Yeah, so, this is actually a pretty important topic that has historical significance. There is a reason why we chose to break the legislature into two houses, and call senators 'statesmen' and why the House of Reps is supposed to be the "People's house" where spending bills have to originate from.
> 
> And the passing of the 17th amendment is probably a very good reason why so many people love to call us a democracy when we're really not (ctrl+f the Constitution, the word doesn't exist). In my mind it's a big factor as to why government is such a big problem today.
> 
> People have decided to become in love with 'democracy', which is a terrible form of government. Read what the founders had to say about democracy. It was not positive. James Madison: "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
> 
> Democracies * don't*  care about your rights. They don't exist. You're nothing to the 51%. There are no overarching ideals of freedom and liberty, there is only the whim of the majority sentiment.
> 
> Republics are supposed to be institutions of order, where we can write a Constitution, find certain inalienable rights self-evident, not granted to us by the majority or some government, but * by our creator.*  * I don't care*  if you don't think I shouldn't have a right to defend myself. Have 99% of people vote against it. * It's not your right to take away.* 
> ...


So far, this is my favorite comment. I do love the insight you guys bring. One of the main reasons I asked this particular question on this forum. Judging based off your first couple of paragraphs, you seem to understand the overall premise that I'm trying to learn. How did you learn about this subject? Is there a book that influenced you? 

I still have not read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers (It's been said that the Federalists were really Nationalists, and the Anti-Federalists were really Federalists) yet. Maybe that is the answer I'm looking for. If you can't tell, I'm really interested in the Anti-Federalist point of view. State sovereignty, etc, etc.

----------


## 106459

Oh boy - you asked the tough question hahaha. For whatever reason, I got into economics, politics, and a bit of philosophy at high school age. Its just been a slow graze since, I couldn't even tell you the Austrian economics book that I read -- but you would want to get into the Austrian side of things. I guess I also work in IT, so I have to work with this foreign construct called computers all day and troubleshoot/isolate why systems (components working together) don't work right.

But yeah, I would say it's important to study economics, which is a lot of things, including deriving the maximum utility/happiness from something, and money. And money is really just supposed to be a placeholder of wealth, which comes from productivity, which comes from getting $#@! done, which is what's really important. Once you have a good grasp of how a free market should work, your default position will become "...why would you ever put those retards in charge of that?" (the government). When you realize government is just a bunch of nobodies with no specialized knowledge in the subjects they're trying to regulate, why would you choose them? Particularly when you understand that government is a monopoly -- a monopoly on violence, where they send people with guns to your house to lock you up. That's not a good business model. That's not good return on investment.

But yeah, I suppose politics was a little secondary for me in that sense. It's been very demotivating to try to commit to politics when it seems like every law and principle has been subverted 7 ways from Sunday. I do like reading about the founders and diving down that hole, but unfortunately I don't really have anywhere I can point you.

So, I don't have any great advice to give, just stay on the track, stay interested, read things and explore what interests you. In terms of what I'm currently watching, I like Jordan Peterson a lot. I always like it when he goes off on his tangent, that he can't believe people think that the default state of things is to be "working" -- that stores just open at 8AM, that people don't starve, and that the default state is supposed to be utopia. Nope. It's a miracle anything works at all - the default state is chaos. So, yeah, when people want to push these policies because of "the good in people's hearts", yeah, my radar goes flying off because it's like "...yeah, and how long until its a system taken over by people's own self-interest and motivation?"

Back on topic - I've enjoyed Styxenhammer666, he's a kinda weird dude, first couple videos I thought I would never watch him, but he kinda grew on me haha -- it's nice to have someone else be looking for the notable news stories. FreedomToons is a fun channel that has some wit, humor, sarcasm to drive points. Coffee Break isn't really geared towards anything but just has really nice, critically thought, videos.

----------


## EBounding

I think the reasoning is pretty simple.  It's A LOT easier to influence your state rep./senator than it is your US Senator.  You can hold them accountable if they vote for a bad US Senator. 

So it doesn't surprise me that so many legislatures approved the amendment.  There's no upside for them politically to have this responsibility, so why not just hand it off to the people?

----------


## bracknelson

The 17th Amendment is so detrimental to the State's sovereignty, the reality is that few other modifications to the Constitution have had the same detrimental effect on the nation as this single, nearly forgotten alteration.

----------

