If you read nothing else in the next few days...read this:

[Maggie]

New Blue Nightmare: Clarence Thomas and the Amendment of Doom

I agree with much of the author says, except the characterization of Justice Scalia as the “less clear minded coleague.” Scalia is one of the most brilliant legal minds to have ever graced the SCOTUS and his opinions are like a primer in how to think about Constitutional Law, so it's not possible to characterize Sclaia that way in comparison to anyone else. That said, Thomas is no dummy, far from it. The guy is solid, he is brilliant.

[engrshock]

The 10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is a very involved Amendment. What does it mean "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

I take this to mean that the Federal government cannot by itself assume powers not given to it. However, since the Congress "represents the people" then Congress can pass legislation that gives the US government "powers" not expressly delegated to the US by the constitution. The amount of money that members of Congress get to get elected makes me have doubts that Congress actually represent "the people" as opposed to the the interests of those that gave them the big money. Still they are supposedly the representation of the people.

[SubGod22]

The 10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is a very involved Amendment. What does it mean "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

I take this to mean that the Federal government cannot by itself assume powers not given to it. However, since the Congress "represents the people" then Congress can pass legislation that gives the US government "powers" not expressly delegated to the US by the constitution. The amount of money that members of Congress get to get elected makes me have doubts that Congress actually represent "the people" as opposed to the the interests of those that gave them the big money. Still they are supposedly the representation of the people.

And that is why the 17th ammendment should never have been and should be repealed.

[Kung Wu]

However, since the Congress "represents the people" then Congress can pass legislation that gives the US government "powers" not expressly delegated to the US by the constitution. The amount of money that members of Congress get to get elected makes me have doubts that Congress actually represent "the people" as opposed to the the interests of those that gave them the big money. Still they are supposedly the representation of the people.

The original framers of the Constitution did not want senators "representing the people". They wanted senators representing their states, as they were appointed (elected) by their state legislatures and not the population. Only the house was supposed to "represent the people".

Now, senators pander to the population, their party, and not the state; and states have a severely diminished representation. Would Obamacare have passed in the system as designed by the original framers? Would the senators have passed something that limits their state's power so blatantly?

It's funny how time and again our Founding Fathers turn out to be right, no matter how bad we butcher their system.

[Maggie]

The 10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is a very involved Amendment. What does it mean "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

I take this to mean that the Federal government cannot by itself assume powers not given to it. However, since the Congress "represents the people" then Congress can pass legislation that gives the US government "powers" not expressly delegated to the US by the constitution. The amount of money that members of Congress get to get elected makes me have doubts that Congress actually represent "the people" as opposed to the the interests of those that gave them the big money. Still they are supposedly the representation of the people.

And that is why the 17th ammendment should never have been and should be repealed.

On repealing the 17th amendment, and thus allowing state legislatures to select U.S. senators. The argument for indirect selection, I think is a perfectly reasonable one, with which I have no quarrel. But I think there are several reasons for conservatives not to take up this fight.

1a) Amending the constitution is an immense political task. Does anyone really think that the people in 38 states will agree that voters should not choose senators directly? The difficulty of the task doesn’t mean it’s not worth undertaking: Sometimes even a losing battle can educate the public about the underlying issues and thus promote the cause (in this case federalism). But it is a consideration that tells against making the effort.

1b) If 38 states were willing to enact this amendment, we would probably already be living in such a republican and conservative country that it would not be necessary to enact in the first place.

2) It will probably seem rather odd to the vast majority of Americans who are not committed constitutionalist conservatives to see conservatives devoting a large portion of their energies (as they would have to do; see 1a) to this topic rather than to more direct measures to reduce federal spending, reduce the debt, revive the economy, and so forth.

3) This campaign would actually miseducate Americans, since it would suggest that what has gone wrong with American federalism is that the federal government has grown at the expense of the states and that the solution is to increase the power of the states against the federal government. That is indeed the impression you would get from a lot of conservative rhetoric about federalism, but I do not believe it is true. Contemporary state governments are more the allies than the victims of the swelling federal government. I would not look to newly-empowered state legislators as a class to find resistance to federal bailouts of the states, or for help in letting people buy health insurance across state lines.

I think then that conservatives should keep the discussion of the 17th amendment confined to the theoretical rather than the practical-political realm.

[ABC]

I can not imagine not being able to directly vote for a U.S. Senator.

At the risk of being undiplomatic, I think it is nuts to even talk about repealing the 17th amendment.

[BOBB]

Handing senate selection over toa state legislature effectively hands it over to the states majority party. Candidates wools be racing far left and right.

[SubGod22]

It was set up that way for a reason. DC now dictates everything if the states like it or not. If it hurts the states or not. That's why a majority of the states are suing Washington over Obamacare. The States SHOULD have a voice and representatives.

States rights are walked all over because nobody is representing them anymore. It's a sad, sad state we're in. I know repeal may never happen, but it should. We'd be better off for it.

[ABC]

Sorry, but I just don't buy the arugments that states' rights would be so much better if politicians elected our politicians.

I really don't trust any politician, even those that I agree with most of the time. I sure as hell don't trust them to vote for my U.S. Senator.

I think they way the founding fathers set up the U.S. Senate was a major flaw.

It is elitism. We really need politicians to make even more decisions for us?

[SubGod22]

They'd be making decisions for the State, not the people. So yes, the State should elect someone to represent that cause. As it is, nobody is doing that.

[ABC]

They'd be making decisions for the State, not the people. So yes, the State should elect someone to represent that cause. As it is, nobody is doing that.

Making decsisions for the government of the State of Kansas?

That is not the role of the U.S. Senate.

I don't know where to start with this one.

[SubGod22]

You said they're making decisions for us. I just went off that. They'd represent the interests of the State, not the individuals. The House is there to represent the interests of the people.