Chris Derry, Bluegrass Institute founder and board member, had a letter published in Sunday's Bowling Green Daily News offering an argument for repealing the 17th Amendment, which changed the process for electing United States senators.
Previously senators were elected by state legislatures; now, of course, they are chosen by popular vote.
Give the article a read and let us know: Do you agree or disagree?
Monday, November 29, 2010
Should the 17th Amendment be repealed?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Abuse of federal power came not by the 17th Amendment, but by the 18th - Prohibition.
That same abuse continues with the Controlled Substances Act that prohibits making some 50,000 hemp products including cancer cures.
The 18th Amendment, like its modern-day cousin, the Controlled Substances Act, conflicts with Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, which says that Congress shall have power to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Alcohol was a source of cheap, home grown fuel that could compete with the emerging oil industry. Today, hemp fuels could compete with the fossil fuel industries.
The election of senators by state legislators wasn't to control government so much as it was to gain the acceptance of smaller states who feared the domination of the government by the larger states. It was an overextension of the abuse of power by the less populace states. Repealing the 17th Amendment would only exacerbate that problem.
If anything, senators votes should be weighted based on population, which would give real significance to the first three words of the Constitution: "We the people…" The 17th Amendment was an attempt to do that.
Post a Comment