<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Repeal the 17th Amendment</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/10/24/repeal-the-17th-amendment/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/10/24/repeal-the-17th-amendment/</link>
	<description>Concordia res Parvae Crescunt</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:49:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: bob</title>
		<link>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/10/24/repeal-the-17th-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-303416</link>
		<dc:creator>bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:35:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=172#comment-303416</guid>
		<description>u r all idiots if u want the amendment repealed 
 </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>u r all idiots if u want the amendment repealed</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CiceroTheYounger</title>
		<link>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/10/24/repeal-the-17th-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-287946</link>
		<dc:creator>CiceroTheYounger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:52:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=172#comment-287946</guid>
		<description>Section One is all that is needed. Period. 

The more you add, the more you take away. Note the brevity of the original section in Article I, and it &quot;worked&quot; for 130 years. No need to overdo it with specifics enumerated in a federal amendment that govern how a state manages its Senators. Especially since restoring power to the several States is the entire point of this exercise.

I do appreciate the contribution to the discussion made by the additional sections of your proposed Amendment. As it is, Section Five is the most valuable for its further restrictions on federal power.

Remember, the entire problem was procedural to begin with, as you explained. It was NOT structural, though the change rendered by the Seventeenth Amendment was very much so. The original solution to a deadlocked legislature is the same that would be necessary today:  let them work out their own procedural problems. That&#039;s what they&#039;re elected and paid to do. (If they allow their state to be unrepresented, then the electors can throw them out.)


ADDITIONAL COMMENTS on Section Four:  I also agree that allowing the recall of Senators with a simple majority defeats the purpose of a six-year term. That long term is an important aspect of the Senate, as it is supposed to be the most removed from direct democracy and resilient for a time to the fleeting whims of the hoi polloi. In addition--and another problem with the specificity of your proposal--certain states (Nebraska and, potentially, Maine) have unicameral legislatures, so the &quot;each house&quot; terminology is awkward, though technically still correct.

Thank you, though, for this well-presented article on a very important issue!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Section One is all that is needed. Period. </p>
<p>The more you add, the more you take away. Note the brevity of the original section in Article I, and it &#8220;worked&#8221; for 130 years. No need to overdo it with specifics enumerated in a federal amendment that govern how a state manages its Senators. Especially since restoring power to the several States is the entire point of this exercise.</p>
<p>I do appreciate the contribution to the discussion made by the additional sections of your proposed Amendment. As it is, Section Five is the most valuable for its further restrictions on federal power.</p>
<p>Remember, the entire problem was procedural to begin with, as you explained. It was NOT structural, though the change rendered by the Seventeenth Amendment was very much so. The original solution to a deadlocked legislature is the same that would be necessary today:  let them work out their own procedural problems. That&#8217;s what they&#8217;re elected and paid to do. (If they allow their state to be unrepresented, then the electors can throw them out.)</p>
<p>ADDITIONAL COMMENTS on Section Four:  I also agree that allowing the recall of Senators with a simple majority defeats the purpose of a six-year term. That long term is an important aspect of the Senate, as it is supposed to be the most removed from direct democracy and resilient for a time to the fleeting whims of the hoi polloi. In addition&#8211;and another problem with the specificity of your proposal&#8211;certain states (Nebraska and, potentially, Maine) have unicameral legislatures, so the &#8220;each house&#8221; terminology is awkward, though technically still correct.</p>
<p>Thank you, though, for this well-presented article on a very important issue!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: How to fix Congress: Make it bigger &#124; Kyle Wingfield</title>
		<link>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/10/24/repeal-the-17th-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-287111</link>
		<dc:creator>How to fix Congress: Make it bigger &#124; Kyle Wingfield</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:22:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=172#comment-287111</guid>
		<description>[...] would change about the Senate&#8217;s two-members-per-state arrangement, though numerous people have argued that repealing the 17th Amendment&#8217;s direct election of senators would also bring [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] would change about the Senate&#8217;s two-members-per-state arrangement, though numerous people have argued that repealing the 17th Amendment&#8217;s direct election of senators would also bring [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bob</title>
		<link>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/10/24/repeal-the-17th-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-274992</link>
		<dc:creator>bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:06:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=172#comment-274992</guid>
		<description>I think there are enough groups challenging the legality of the 16th amendment.  How about a group instead to challenge the constitutionality of the tax code instead?  It surely violates the principle of equal protection by setting tax rates.  If the income tax is legal, the only legal rate is one rate for all, no deductions or exemptions, and no minimum income level that doesn’t pay.  This would force congress to be responsive to all the people.  Also, how about a challenge to any and all laws that congress exempts itself from?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think there are enough groups challenging the legality of the 16th amendment.  How about a group instead to challenge the constitutionality of the tax code instead?  It surely violates the principle of equal protection by setting tax rates.  If the income tax is legal, the only legal rate is one rate for all, no deductions or exemptions, and no minimum income level that doesn’t pay.  This would force congress to be responsive to all the people.  Also, how about a challenge to any and all laws that congress exempts itself from?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Monorprise</title>
		<link>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/10/24/repeal-the-17th-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-274367</link>
		<dc:creator>Monorprise</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 05:28:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=172#comment-274367</guid>
		<description>The 17th amendments clearly did not fix the deadlock problem as the election of al Franklin proves.  The people are just as capable of being in indecisive as the State legislators, at least in the legislator there is a democratic reason due to inability to agree on who to elect, rather then inability to agree on an election outcome.

If you wanted to fix it say repeal the 17th and say senators shall be elected by the state legislator and hold office until replaced.  But that would cause more problems with the incumbent advantage merely needing to prevent a vote, its better to have no government then bad government.  So I&#039;m content to live with the &quot;dead lock&quot; problem, as long as we establish a quorum consist of at least 1 senator from every state.  

Notably of course that will make the “dead lock” problem much more severe (one state could shut down congress by denying senators) in difference cases then just repealing the 17th amendment but again I contend that no Federal government is better then bad Federal government.

If all else fails the States have at least the means to defend themselves if actually invaded or such eminent danger of invasion as not to permit delay.  So really it’s just reducing us to our basic elements.

Then again just repealing the 17th amendment and having the old “deadlock” problem constitutes a loss to the State in deadlock not to the whole of the united States so maybe they deserve to be unrepresented for the time they cant decide on a senator due to internal political wrangling.

It is not justifiable to screw over everyone just because one person is doing harm to themselves.

So in conclusion the best answer is simply repealing the 17th amendment, if New York wants to harm itself with internal political deadlock on the simple issue of protecting the interest and power of the state of New York, then let it.  Do not let it however become a tool for the harming of all other States.

We must recognizes that harming someone only consist of doing something to them of your own accord which deprives them of their otherwise preexisting rights, it doesn’t not consecutive failing to protect them from themselves, or anyone else if not contracted.

Other people’s services are a privilege when wanted, not rights unless willfully contracted for by both parties.(provider and reserver)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 17th amendments clearly did not fix the deadlock problem as the election of al Franklin proves.  The people are just as capable of being in indecisive as the State legislators, at least in the legislator there is a democratic reason due to inability to agree on who to elect, rather then inability to agree on an election outcome.</p>
<p>If you wanted to fix it say repeal the 17th and say senators shall be elected by the state legislator and hold office until replaced.  But that would cause more problems with the incumbent advantage merely needing to prevent a vote, its better to have no government then bad government.  So I&#8217;m content to live with the &#8220;dead lock&#8221; problem, as long as we establish a quorum consist of at least 1 senator from every state.  </p>
<p>Notably of course that will make the “dead lock” problem much more severe (one state could shut down congress by denying senators) in difference cases then just repealing the 17th amendment but again I contend that no Federal government is better then bad Federal government.</p>
<p>If all else fails the States have at least the means to defend themselves if actually invaded or such eminent danger of invasion as not to permit delay.  So really it’s just reducing us to our basic elements.</p>
<p>Then again just repealing the 17th amendment and having the old “deadlock” problem constitutes a loss to the State in deadlock not to the whole of the united States so maybe they deserve to be unrepresented for the time they cant decide on a senator due to internal political wrangling.</p>
<p>It is not justifiable to screw over everyone just because one person is doing harm to themselves.</p>
<p>So in conclusion the best answer is simply repealing the 17th amendment, if New York wants to harm itself with internal political deadlock on the simple issue of protecting the interest and power of the state of New York, then let it.  Do not let it however become a tool for the harming of all other States.</p>
<p>We must recognizes that harming someone only consist of doing something to them of your own accord which deprives them of their otherwise preexisting rights, it doesn’t not consecutive failing to protect them from themselves, or anyone else if not contracted.</p>
<p>Other people’s services are a privilege when wanted, not rights unless willfully contracted for by both parties.(provider and reserver)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Boldin</title>
		<link>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/10/24/repeal-the-17th-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-267899</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Boldin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 04:26:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=172#comment-267899</guid>
		<description>hey burningspleen - I agree that repealing the 16th and 17th would do a great deal for liberty.  But, can you point to any movement that&#039;s actually making headway on this?  Or, is it just an exercise in futility?  We&#039;re looking in places other than the federal government to solve our problems....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hey burningspleen &#8211; I agree that repealing the 16th and 17th would do a great deal for liberty.  But, can you point to any movement that&#8217;s actually making headway on this?  Or, is it just an exercise in futility?  We&#8217;re looking in places other than the federal government to solve our problems&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BurningSpleen</title>
		<link>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/10/24/repeal-the-17th-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-267270</link>
		<dc:creator>BurningSpleen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:49:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=172#comment-267270</guid>
		<description>Just repeal the 17th Amendement.  Just because NY could not elect it senators is no reason to punish the other states.  NY has always run this country politically.  Each state had sovereign rights, but NY didn&#039;t care.  It wanted populism and got it.  The 16th Amendment must be repealed too.

---
REPEAL THE 16th AMENDMENT AND THE 17th AMENDMENT NOW TO RESTORE LIBERTY!

3 events got us into the crisis today.  All the talk of petitions and the like to Congress and the President ignore the fundamental problem which transformed our nation from a liberty-loving Constitutional Republic to a liberty-destroying Socialist Democracy.  Don’t doubt me.  Time and again Conservatives and Libertarians ask the same questions.  How do we restore our nation to its founding principles?

First, we must stop fighting Liberals, Liars, Statists, Socialists, and Communists are their terms.  They stole our nation from us.  They are the enemy.  Populism is evil.

The 3 events that transformed our nation into a downward spiral are the 16th Amendment, the 17th Amendment, and the election of Woodrow Wilson.  That’s it.  Nothing more.  

We must repeal the 16th Amendment and the 17th Amendment.  These amendments empower the Left to oppress us.  These amendments brought the Statists to power starting with Woodrow Wilson.  These amendments enabled unlimited taxation and nationalized the several states.  These amendments nationalized our country.  These amendments are the root of our problems.

I’ll prove it.  The Left and their evil cabal will never allow these amendments to be repealed.  Period.  A political revolution will have to take place to get these amendments repealed.  The Left needs these amendments to continue socializing and nationalizing our nation.  

All of the debates about policies and the like are framed within these amendments making the the Left the agenda makers and power-brokers.  These amendments are the tools for enormous taxation imposed upon us by our unaccountable government.  High taxes are the weapons used by the left to steal our liberties.   

My children will be indentured servants of the Federal Government unless we repeal the 16th and 17th amendments.  We are enslaved today by our Nationlized Government.  We are living in Orwell’s 1984.  

REPEAL THE 16th AMENDMENT AND THE 17th AMENDMENT NOW TO RESTORE LIBERTY!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just repeal the 17th Amendement.  Just because NY could not elect it senators is no reason to punish the other states.  NY has always run this country politically.  Each state had sovereign rights, but NY didn&#8217;t care.  It wanted populism and got it.  The 16th Amendment must be repealed too.</p>
<p>&#8212;<br />
REPEAL THE 16th AMENDMENT AND THE 17th AMENDMENT NOW TO RESTORE LIBERTY!</p>
<p>3 events got us into the crisis today.  All the talk of petitions and the like to Congress and the President ignore the fundamental problem which transformed our nation from a liberty-loving Constitutional Republic to a liberty-destroying Socialist Democracy.  Don’t doubt me.  Time and again Conservatives and Libertarians ask the same questions.  How do we restore our nation to its founding principles?</p>
<p>First, we must stop fighting Liberals, Liars, Statists, Socialists, and Communists are their terms.  They stole our nation from us.  They are the enemy.  Populism is evil.</p>
<p>The 3 events that transformed our nation into a downward spiral are the 16th Amendment, the 17th Amendment, and the election of Woodrow Wilson.  That’s it.  Nothing more.  </p>
<p>We must repeal the 16th Amendment and the 17th Amendment.  These amendments empower the Left to oppress us.  These amendments brought the Statists to power starting with Woodrow Wilson.  These amendments enabled unlimited taxation and nationalized the several states.  These amendments nationalized our country.  These amendments are the root of our problems.</p>
<p>I’ll prove it.  The Left and their evil cabal will never allow these amendments to be repealed.  Period.  A political revolution will have to take place to get these amendments repealed.  The Left needs these amendments to continue socializing and nationalizing our nation.  </p>
<p>All of the debates about policies and the like are framed within these amendments making the the Left the agenda makers and power-brokers.  These amendments are the tools for enormous taxation imposed upon us by our unaccountable government.  High taxes are the weapons used by the left to steal our liberties.   </p>
<p>My children will be indentured servants of the Federal Government unless we repeal the 16th and 17th amendments.  We are enslaved today by our Nationlized Government.  We are living in Orwell’s 1984.  </p>
<p>REPEAL THE 16th AMENDMENT AND THE 17th AMENDMENT NOW TO RESTORE LIBERTY!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MichaelBoldin</title>
		<link>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/10/24/repeal-the-17th-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-258128</link>
		<dc:creator>MichaelBoldin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:32:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=172#comment-258128</guid>
		<description>Or, how about just repealing the amendment altogether?  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Or, how about just repealing the amendment altogether?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kanith L. Stone</title>
		<link>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/10/24/repeal-the-17th-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-258120</link>
		<dc:creator>Kanith L. Stone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:50:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=172#comment-258120</guid>
		<description>The proposed amendment does not address the original problem that gave rise to the Seventeenth Amendment.  From your article: &quot;The 17th Amendment was passed because of a procedural problem in the original concept and not because of a need to alter the balance of power. The procedural problem consisted of frequent deadlocks when the state legislatures were trying to select a senator. When deadlocked, a state would go without representation in the Senate.&quot;  The amendment should address this problem. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The proposed amendment does not address the original problem that gave rise to the Seventeenth Amendment.  From your article: &quot;The 17th Amendment was passed because of a procedural problem in the original concept and not because of a need to alter the balance of power. The procedural problem consisted of frequent deadlocks when the state legislatures were trying to select a senator. When deadlocked, a state would go without representation in the Senate.&quot;  The amendment should address this problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Boldin</title>
		<link>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/10/24/repeal-the-17th-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-253882</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Boldin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:34:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=172#comment-253882</guid>
		<description>Some really interesting perspective on this issue, thanks for the input!  Looking forward to seeing you around this site more in the near future...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some really interesting perspective on this issue, thanks for the input!  Looking forward to seeing you around this site more in the near future&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
