The Repeal Amendment OR Repeal The Amendment?

Source

As we all know, Senators are supposed to represent their States Legislatures. When a majority of States challenged the Health Care Reform Law in court, we could ask, are our Senators doing their job? We can develop an answer to this by asking some simple questions, using the recent Health Care debacle as an example:

  • Which State’s challenged the law?
  • How did these State's Senators vote?
  • How did each State’s Senators vote on repealing the law?
  • Were the States challenging the law faithfully represented by their Senators?


Collect The Data

Which State’s challenged the law?

This answer used to be available at 21statelawsuit.com . The two highest visibility lawsuits were filed by Virginia, and by Florida and other states. The Florida lawsuit went to the Supreme Court. Additional information is available by web-searching the term ‘health care lawsuits states’, where one can find additional States that are planning to outlaw the enforcement of the health care law in their States. It’s not the purpose of this article to identify all the States that are challenging the law, just the ones that were not represented by their Senators.

How did each State's Senators vote?

Thanks to our transparency in government, this answer is available at www.senate.gov . On the right hand side you can select the ‘Votes’ tab which gives you access to the ‘Roll Call Tables’. We seek the roll calls of the 111th Congress, 2nd session. Select roll call number 00105 to see how each individual senators voted. The page allows selectable views by name, by vote position, and by home state. It does not allow selection by party, but a quick review by position shows:

  • 56 Yea Votes, 2 Independent and 54 Democrat
  • 43 Nay Votes, 40 Republican and 3 Democrat
  • 1 Abstain, Republican

This data could easily be interpreted to indicate that the vote was clearly along partisan lines. Only three (or four) Senators broke with the party position.

How did each State’s Senators vote on repealing the law?

While this article was being written, a vote to repeal Health Care came up in the Senate and was rejected. To find this roll call, follow the links at www.senate.gov similar to above, selecting 112th Congress, 1st session, roll call number 9. Review by position shows:

  • Keep the Law – 51 Votes, 1 Independent and 50 Democrat
  • Repeal the Law – 47 Votes, 47 Republican
  • 2 Abstain, 1 Democrat, 1 Independent (the Democrat is from my home State, Virginia)

Once again, the data could easily be interpreted to indicate that the vote was clearly along partisan lines. Only one Senator broke with party position. Independents are, by definition, non-partisan.

Once you have the data in hand, it is fairly straightforward to construct a table that shows each state, how their senators voted, whether that state was part of a lawsuit challenge, and whether the state is seeking to outlaw enforcement of the law within their borders. Result is the table here. States where Senators voted one way and lawsuits went the other way are highlighted.


How The Senators Voted

STATE
PASS HEALTH CARE
LAWSUITS?
NOT HERE?
REPEAL HEALTH CARE
Alabama
Against
Yes
 
For
Alaska
Split
Yes
 
Split
Arizona
Against
Yes
 
For
Arkansas
Against
 
 
Split
California
For
 
 
Against
Colorado
For
Yes
 
Against
Connecticut
For
 
 
Split
Delaware
For
 
 
Against
Florida
Split
Yes
 
Split
Georgia
Nay & abstain
Yes
 
For
Hawaii
For
 
 
Against
Idaho
Against
Yes
 
For
Illinois
For
 
 
Split
Indiana
Split
Yes
 
For
Iowa
Split
 
 
Split
Kansas
Against
 
 
For
Kentucky
Against
 
 
For
Louisiana
Split
Yes
 
Split
Maine
Against
 
Yes
For
Maryland
For
 
 
Against
Massachusetts
Split
 
 
Split
Michigan
For
Yes
 
Against
Minnesota
For
 
 
Against
Mississippi
Against
Yes
 
For
Missouri
Split
 
 
Split
Montana
For
 
In process
Against
Nebraska
Against
Yes
Yes
Split
Nevada
Split
Yes
 
Split
New Hampshire
Split
 
 
Split
New Jersey
For
 
 
Against
New Mexico
For
 
 
Against
New York
For
 
 
Against
North Carolina
Split
 
 
Split
North Dakota
For
Yes
 
Split
Ohio
Split
 
 
Split
Oklahoma
Against
Yes
 
For
Oregon
For
 
Yes
Against
Pennsylvania
For
Yes
 
Split
Rhode Island
For
 
 
Against
South Carolina
Against
Yes
 
For
South Dakota
Split
Yes
 
Split
Tennessee
Against
 
 
For
Texas
Against
Yes
Yes
For
Utah
Against
Yes
 
For
Vermont
For
 
 
Against
Virginia
For
Yes
 
Nay & abstain
Washington
For
Yes
 
Against
West Virginia
For
 
 
Against
Wisconsin
For
 
 
Split
Wyoming
Against
 
Yes
For

Did Our Senators Represent Their States Legislatures?

Comparing these two lists we can identify States where the Senators vote seems to be in direct conflict with their States Legislature. These States are either filing lawsuits or are considering laws to outlaw the enforcement of the Health Care law within their borders. Those states are:

  • Colorado, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington

In addition, the following states had split representation:

  • Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, South Dakota

In other words, 22 Senators broke with the position of their States. If we had reduced the number twenty-two down by eight, eight of twenty two Senators faithfully representing their states would have been enough to prevent the Health Care Reform from passing the Senate. This would in turn have prevented the costly and time-consuming lawsuits that followed.

The repeal vote showed a similar trend, with five States Senators all voting against repeal and ten States with split votes, or a total of 20 Senators voting against their own State’s legislatures as evidenced by the lawsuits filed and anti-Health care laws created. Note also that these 20 Senators, together with the 47 who voted for repeal, would be enough to form the two-thirds Constitutional majority needed in the Senate to overcome a veto of the repeal by the President.

It seems difficult to me not to conclude that our Senators allegiance to party outweighs their allegiance to their States. While it is not true of all senators, the trend to represent party rather than State is there. It is worth noting also that prior to the 17th Amendment in the 1913, Senators were chosen by and owed their allegiance to their States Legislatures. That was the original role defined for the Senate in our original Constitution.

In the Election of 2010, in my opinion, voters made a statement about Representatives representing their districts. That happened because ‘We the People’ stood up and said ‘enough is enough’. We have the power of the vote to replace Representatives when we feel they no longer represent us. Senators are more slowly affected. States Legislatures no longer hold power over those who represent them in the Senate. Instead, our States Legislatures rely on voters to remember until the next election that their States Legislature was not represented. The States rely on voters to care about and remember such things.

Our Tax Money Down The Drain
Our Tax Money Down The Drain

Question: What do We do?

It seems logical to consider whether we want our government to function like this, two separate factions, democrat and republican, each taking power in turn, creating the laws they want, and forcing the People and the States to undo them if the law is unwanted. Over the past thirty or forty years the attitude seems to have been ‘We have the power, we make the laws, what are you going to do about it?’, with only the faces changing every now and then dependent on which party is perceived as the least threat to the people.

Are there alternatives? Overwhelmingly, YES, there are alternatives, and our states exercised one of those alternatives (see the lawsuits in the table above) as this article was being written. Eventually our Supreme Court made a decision. Ultimately though, taxpayers do not want to be paying for a process that creates and undoes laws. Lawsuits are costly time consuming actions, and we go into an unproductive state of ‘wait and see’ every time an unpopular law goes into effect, rather than exercising our normal creative and competitive processes for solving whatever problem faces us.

So, to do a quick analysis, consider the following options, and do an elementary comparison based on magnitude of cost, not by dollars, but by relative number of how many tax-paid people need to be involved. Evaluate also by amount of time that we spend resolving lawsuits. So, consider these options:

  • Leaving things as they are.
  • Creating a New State’s Repeal Amendment.
  • Repealing the 17th Amendment.

For sake of argument, regard a cost unit with the symbol ‘($)’, regard the cost of two Senators representing their States as two cost units (2$), treat the cost of one State filing a federal lawsuit as twenty cost units (20$), treat the cost of one State creating it’s own law as ten cost units (10$), and treat the cost of Supreme Court involvement as ten cost units (10$). The base cost of creating a law in the Senate is 100$. Don’t expect these numbers to be accurate; they are just one man’s guess as to relative magnitude of taxpayer cost.

Time spent in chaos is a little bit different to evaluate, since the jobs overlap and two or more of these jobs can be done at once (dollars accumulate rather than getting spent in two places at once, so are easier to guess at). Denote the time for Senate to do their job, one time unit (Θ). Denote the time for States to either write there own ‘not here’ law, or file a lawsuit as one time unit (Θ), and time for Supreme Court to do their thing as one time unit (Θ).

Option One: Leaving things as they are.

The cost items here are for 100 Senators, noted here as 100$. Twenty seven states are involved in lawsuits in the Federal Court System, noted here as 540$. Expectation is that the Supreme Court will rule on two lawsuits, noted as 20$. Seven States are creating ‘not here’ laws, noted here as 70$.

Time spent is for 1) the Senate to pass the law, or one time unit (Θ), 2) States to file lawsuits or ‘not here’ laws, or one time unit (Θ), and 3) time to go through the Supreme Court process, or one time unit (Θ).

Total relative cost for this process is 730$. Total relative time spent is three time units (ΘΘΘ).

Option Two: Creating a NewState’s Repeal Amendment.

For this case, we add to the costs above. Denote relative cost per state as ten cost units (10$). Denote relative time for state’s to exercise a repeal amendment (if it goes forward) as three time units (ΘΘΘ). States will all travel this path at the same time (we hope), so we’ll regard time to repeal as overlapping. Two thirds of our fifty states would be thirty four states, so overall all cost would increase by 340$.

This brings the total relative cost for this process to 1070$, and total time to six time units (ΘΘΘΘΘΘ).

Option Three: Repealing the 17th Amendment.

If the 17th amendment had never been passed, and Senators knew they would be held accountable by their state’s legislature, our example Health Care bill never would have passed, and the total relative cost for this process would be 100$ and one time unit (Θ).

In summary, the relative costs are (not including the one-time relative cost to amend our Constitition one way or the other):

  • Leaving things as they are - 730$, three time units (ΘΘΘ),
  • With a New State’s Repeal Amendment in effect - 1070$, six time units (ΘΘΘΘΘΘ),
  • With the 17th Amendment repealed - 100$ and one time unit (Θ).

Repeal the 17th Amendment

Answer: RESTORE STATES REPRESENTATION

Given these options, I’d favor repealing the 17th Amendment as the more fiscally responsible means for restoring States representation. The data indicated above indicates that the Senate is currently acting as a representative body for their party, not their States, and the hypothetical analysis for cost indicates it is costing the taxpayer big-time.

Afterword & Notes

While Health Care is used as the example, I think we all agree we want some sort of Health Care in place. But the result should be agreeable to the people and the State's, and not leave us feeling 'They did it to us again', or leave us feeling like we have to fight to retain our Constitutional rights. It is not about any one issue, it is about our government no longer appearing to function according to the roles defined by our forefathers in our Constitution.

Links to Additional Internet Resources on this topic are located below the comments.

Status Notes:

  1. 5 Feb 2011 - Creating a New State's Repeal Amendment passed the House but was rejected by the Senate.
  2. 5 Feb 2011 - Lawsuits from two states, one backed by 25 other states (maybe more) were filed against the Affordable Health Care law.
  3. April 14, 2011 - A second Senate vote on repealing Health Care was agreed to as part of compromise on passing H.R. 1473 (Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011) of 14 April 2011.
  4. August 12, 2011 - 11th Circuit United States Court of Appeals (Atlanta) ruled 2-1 against the Health Care bill.
  5. June 28, 2012 - The Supreme Court upheld the 'individual mandate' of the law. The mandate was regarded by many analysts as key to the ability to fund the law, and was opposed on the basis that it requires every individual to have Health Insurance, or pay a fine. The laws stated penalty for not having Insurance was regarded by the court as a 'tax'.
  6. July 11, 2012 - The House voted to repeal the Affordable Health Care Law.
  7. November 2012 - President Obama was re-elected. Five Senators whose States appealed the Health Care Bil were re-elected. None were voted out. Two retired.
  8. November 2014 - Two Senators whose States appealed the Health Care Bill were re-elected. Three were voted out. Two chose not to run. One retired.
  9. Since that time, schoolchildren continue to be taught in school that Senators represent for their States. They resolutely believe the lie, or flunk their government class.

Ever Since

brainwash_by_alinajames on deviant art
brainwash_by_alinajames on deviant art | Source

Comments 34 comments

John O'Brien 5 years ago

The practical argument for a return to the original system is sustainability. As recent events have shown, at some point so-called entitlement programs and subsidies to the states will come under scrutiny and any federal cuts could prove devastating. I believe the prospect of a balanced budget amendment is a dangerous one, but right now I think it has the potential to gather steam. And this is where the 16th and 17th come into play.

I personally believe "limited government" to not be "less government" but for both federal and state gov'ts to respect their own spheres of influence. The only way I can see the entities of gov't properly handling entitlement reform and stewarding away from state subsidies is to return the states' voice in federal proceedings and legislation, as well as the states repealing their own balanced budget amendments (which I believe federal subsidies effectively made attractive to the states in the first place.)

As to you point about corruption, I believe both the original system's failure and the 17th being a virtual non starter are due to the same root cause: the media. The fourth estate running interference, pushing overreaching reform, entrenching us in ideological patterns and causing many of us to be become disengaged in the working of the system is really the cause of much of this.

Thanks, John


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

John, what you say about the 17th amendment's not making the corrections that was anticipated at the time of its passage is appreciated. But there has to be a compelling reason to go back to the pre 1913 system besides the fact that it was equally ineffective as what it is going on in the Senate presently. Without a dramatic advantage that can made evident to the masses, it is going to be a tough sell in any case. Folks already complain about the listlessness of our elected bodies even as we (the people) elect them, returning the process to the hands of the elite is not going have a pallative effect on them. Thanks John, Cred2


John O'Brien 5 years ago

I'm just not clear if there was a particular point in my piece that you would like clarified or explained. As best I can tell, there is something about pre 1913 corruption being downplayed as minimal. This is not my intent so much as to draw parallels between today's language and the rhetoric during the decades before 1913. My argument for repeal is that in and of itself the 17th never actually repaired the system and therefore should be deemed a failure.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Hello, John, I thought that reviewed most everything, please tell me if I missed a point that you were making..


John O'Brien 5 years ago

Credence2,

I am not sure ... are you referring to my piece at any point?


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Hello, FJ, I had the opportunity to read the scholarly material you so kindly referenced in your comment. Give my thanks to the authors for helping to light the way.

Having read the pro repeal article, in reference to my first question as to the 'corruption issue", it appears that the corruption was mimimal according to the article. But that the real reason for it was that the process of popular sovereignty for election of Senators had been an ongoing practice well before 1913 and that the amendment was just putting into national law what was already common practice, much in the way of Woman's suffrage.

As it was stated in a subsequent article, even with the repeal of the 17th amendment, it is going to be hard to sell people on mass to any form of elitism and accept the explanations of the elite as to why they need to be less involved in the process of placing them into power. I looked at the manwithnopants article, yes it is well and good as long as there are no ideological litmus tests.

As for my third question that you referenced, taking back a popular perogative by the electorate is a tough sell.

The fourth question i guess would be what makes me think that a state legislature would have any more integrity and be any less subject to the whims and passions that the elites fear would be the case with popular sovereignty. Mr. Madison, while stating the case for a distinction between maintenance of the federalist system popular sovereignty, his definition of democratic (the franchise for white male property owners over 21) was a view of the world from a his perspective and those of his time.

Proponents seem to be of a definite conservative ideological bent. The idea of an American equivalent of the House of Lords is anathema. Seems like much that is desired by proponents for example, appointing federal judges with a better understanding of the part federalism plays in the government as a whole, sounds like an endorsement of a Scalia or Thomas .States Rights is a polilically charged term, I am going to be suspicious of some intent behind this move to promote rightwing/conservative agenda.

The idea that the ‘better sort’ should be in control and should yield to their passions in the place of the rabble could well mean exchanging one form of tyrant for another. Yes, it is obvious that in the beginning the Senate was never intended to be a body sustained by popular sovereignty, how else can you explain the idea that a person in Wyoming has more representation than one in California?. As a progressive, the democratic comes before the representative. It was a wise compromise from the founding fathers, that of a body of the legislature reflecting the popular will separate and distinct from the body representing the state as independent to challenge encroachment of federal power. It may very well be noteworthy but you have to come up with a different approach to move the nation in that direction. Regards Cred2


FitnezzJim profile image

FitnezzJim 5 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia Author

Credence,

In addition to the comment above, I've received e-mail citing two articles written by John MacMullin, Attorney at Law. Both articles point to the original rationale for proposing the 17th Amendment. Long story short, the initial concerns related to lack of representation of States in the Senate rather than corruption of the Senators. The difference is that their lack of representation was due to temporary deadlocks associated with the individual States legislature’s selection processes rather than allegiance to Party over allegiance to State. Mr. MacMullins articles and the resolution he offers are worded in such a way that they address both the original concern and the emergent problems that have developed.

Of course, when I saw what the concerns were (with references even) I almost immediately asked myself: 'Did we make the original concern regarding lack of representation worse in the long-term by resolving the concerns about lack of representation in a hasty manner?'


FitnezzJim profile image

FitnezzJim 5 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia Author

Thanks.

Other links to additional resources are located below the comments section of this article.


John O'Brien 5 years ago

Hi ... Just received an email about this (liked the piece, btw) and thought I'd offer my take on it. While it may not offer all the answers to Credence's questions, I think it may offer insights (at least as I see them) to the overall argument.

http://repealthe17thamendment.blogspot.com/2011/07...


FitnezzJim profile image

FitnezzJim 5 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia Author

Credence, I see four questions in that last comment.

For the first, I'd refer you to the debators at the George Mason University of Law. Link below.

For the second question I'd refer you to an article by Hubber 'TheManWithNoPants' titled ‘Truth or Consequences …’. He is seeking to have any political candidate be subject to vetting (and subsequent checks) similar to those who hold government clearances. His web-page is at housefireproject.com.

Regarding the third question: Requiring appointment by the State's legislature does not mean that Senators cannot be elected by the people. In fact, most state's selected appointees on the basis of the popular vote prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment. The problem that needs to be corrected is that (according to how I read the data) Senators vote along party lines without consideration to their State's input. I think appointment by the State’s legislature is a reminder that they are there to represent their state and not their party.

Regarding the fourth question: Can I talk you into rephrasing that last question? I didn’t get it.

You have really good questions, I think I'm going to see if I can't get those folks at George Mason to stop in for a visit.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Thanks, FJ, sorry for the delay getting back with you.

Per your first paragraph, problems with integrity of the system is a big problem. It is never easy to get the votes necessary to amend the constitution. I have done a little research on my own in regards to this topic. When it comes to bribes and undue patronage, I will trust the multitude over the state legislature. I am always more in favor of democratic over representative. The Senate is the more powerful body between the two congressional bodies. I am wary of allowing an "ambassador, beyond my ability to influence. The desire of the state legislature should be congruent with that of the popular electorate, as that should be the ultimate objective of all of this. If the folks in 1912 cited corruption problems as a reason for this change, how much more of this would we expect to see in this day and age? Before this repeal can be taken seriously what is being done to preclude the problem that prompted the need for this amendment in the first place? Yes, the legislative process is in disarry, but removing the popular vote which is the more direct expression of public will from the equation, does not strike me as the solution. FJ, what is allegence to the state that precludes not being under obligation to consider the will of the electorate? Where would you find each on divergent paths? Regards, Cred2


FitnezzJim profile image

FitnezzJim 5 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia Author

That is a well-timed comment Credence.

I turned to a recent debate between two Professors of Law at George Mason University School of Law for an answer (Text at third link in the links after the comments). I'm not a lawyer, so the opinion that follows is unschooled. I find no direct answer to the question in the texts, but can infer that the original proposal was due to questions of integrity, and that little thought was given to how the change would impact our form of government.

With respect to ignoring constituency, I would say again, under the original Constitution, the responsibility to constituency resides in the House of Representatives. The responsibility to States resided in the Senate, who were supposed to serve in the role of 'Ambassadors for their State'. Removing the amendment would restore the well thought out and debated system of governance developed in the 1700’s.

Regarding elitism, the attempts to move back to a Senate that represents the States and a House that represents the People is more about restoration of a lost check and balance in the system than it is about elitism. the restoration would prevent situations like the debacle that followed Health Care, where we so many states ended up suing in federal court, in direct conflict with the votes of their Senators who chose to align with their parties over their States objections. It would prevent the uncertainty that goes with wondering ‘how things will turn out’ as the courts resolve the question.

In my opinion it is clear that it never would have happened in its current form if Senators truly owed allegiance to their States. At the same time, it would remain clear that, yes, the people do want something done.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Reasonable premise, FJ, but why was this Amendment ratified in the first place? There were questions as to the integrity of the appointment system by state legislatures. Am I to believe that the reason that this problem of senatorial appointment identified so long ago has really changed? I am not keen to having my wishes as constituency ignored by representatives whose fidelity is to political hacks and not to me. I am more interested in the "democratic" over the "representative" aspect. But your point is well taken, having these men free of the distraction of the popular sovereignty makes them free to better attend to the nations business, but they need to be aware that elitism is not in order as 'we the people' pay the bills and want everybody in a position to be held accountable.

I am already suspicious as this is something so solidly on the plate for conservatives. Are they desiring to move power from the people back to the state legislatures, who may well be considered elites, out of touch with the man in the street? Thanks for your reply to my question Cred2


FitnezzJim profile image

FitnezzJim 5 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia Author

Repeal of the 17th Amendment would be to the advantage to the voting electorate by reinstituting a check and balance that allows the individual States governments to stand up for their rights. The Peoples representatation is more than adequately provided for in the House of Representatives.

I'm going to borrow my own words from a comment I made to an essay provided by JScott10 the other day on States Rights, here on HubPages.

The one key blow to States rights, the 17th Amendment, was proposed 1912 and ratified 1913. This amendment made Senators popularly elected, rather than selected by their individual State’s legislatures. Although elected to ‘represent’ their State, their allegiance shifted. They were no longer expected to be loyal to the State’s legislatures, but rather to the will of the people. The House of Representatives was originally designed as the body that would represent for the voice of the people. The 17th Amendment changed that, and eventually caused our government to evolve (devolve) to the elitist party system that we have today, where the State’s simply do not have any path (other than Judicial) for non-concurrence with federal laws that might impact the economic well-being of any given individual state.

And thanks for commenting and bring up the question. I actually had a recent communication asking if I'd be willing to have discussions like this in this kind of forum, where point and counterpoint can be shared in a reasonable dialog.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Hi, fitnessjim, a good hub with interesting charts and graphs, as you are obviously conservative in your views. Tell me how repeal of the 17th Amendment, Direct Election of Senators is to the advantage of the voting electorate? Thanks for allowing me to join your team, from the other side of the ideological divide, Credence2


FitnezzJim profile image

FitnezzJim 5 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia Author

I was reminded of my first interest in the Constitution when President Obama was elected. A vacationer was visiting the area where I lived as a kid and firmly stated that it was not possible for a black man to be elected. I did not know. So, at suggestion of our parents, we pulled out a copy of the Chicago Tribune (or Sun) almanac, looked up the Constitution, and carefully searched for anything about restrictions on becoming President. I was 10 or 11, and he was 7 or 8. Why kids that age were even thinking about such questions is beyond my comprehension today. Anyway, we found out that 1) there was nothing in the Constitution that stopped a black man from becoming president, 2) a black man had never been president (and given the conflicts of the 60's it seemed like it might never happen), and 3) the world would change one day and it would eventually happen.

True change takes decades, or longer.


Max Havlick profile image

Max Havlick 5 years ago from Villa Park, Illinois

Jim, is there something special in the Virginia water that makes people there want to revise constitutions in their spare time? Do you guys grow up with James Madison and Thos. Jefferson and Patrick Henry as your role models pressing you ever onward?

To set oneself up to do battle with the 17th amendment, or any other part of the constitution, is a formidable challenge, and you respond with a detailed analysis of how your proposed change would have impacted a major recent legislative event, and the relative harm of other possible changes.

All this is impressive work, Jim, not exactly the cause that I am keyed up about (I did start to write a book on the 14th amendment once), but the nation would be poorer, and more clearly headed toward stagnation, without creative people like you opening up new constitutional possibilities for discussion. The fact that you're here on hubpages getting some response, pro and con, and giving you a chance to respond, seems to me like a huge boost and energizer to your interest.

I'm interested in constitutional law, so I'll look at your other hubs on this subject. One idea, if you have not done it, you might gather up all the objections you can find to repealing the 17th and list them one by one with your succinct answer to the objection.


katiem2 profile image

katiem2 5 years ago from I'm outta here

This is a touchy subject but I will stick with what you covered and thats the performance of the government. They need to be called into the office and given a verbal, then a written, then canned. Whew wouldn't it be great if they were actually held accountable to do their jobs and perform successfully or get canned?

Our founding fathers had it right we need to get back to that plan! Great job and well written. :) Katie


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Great Hub and I agree. The founding Fathers knew what they were doing. Repeal the 17th.


FitnezzJim profile image

FitnezzJim 5 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia Author

James, thanks for the visit.

Hopefully, I put forward a different perspective.


    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    More by this Author


    Click to Rate This Article
    working