17th Amendment

[chris_gerrib]

So, I hear from various sources that at least some Republicans seriously want to repeal the 17th Amendment and not let people vote for their Senators. Apparently this is a long-standing issue, brought to the forefront by losing the health care vote. It sounds to me like a team who just lost a basketball game saying that "if all baskets counted for 3 points, we'd have won!" Well:

1) They don't and didn't - something y'all knew before you put on your jock straps.
2) Sour grapes? In this case, larded with more than a touch of hypocrisy (more below).
3) Dudes - the other guy's baskets count for three points too, so you still lose!

Let me expand on points 2 and 3 in the context of the Senate. The argument for repeal of the 17th Amendment is that it bolsters State's Rights, since the Senators would now work for the State legislatures. I call BS on "States Rights," since the Republican "solution" to health care was interstate sale of health insurance and tort reform, both issues currently under the control of State governments.

Regarding point #3, there aren't very many Senators who are not of the same party as their state legislature. The current exceptions cut both ways, so I suspect that the party mix in the Senate would be very similar to the current mix. (BTW, no Scott Brown from Massachusetts - that statehouse is Democratic.) No, the only policy change would be even more of a tendency to funnel Federal money to the states. I think the Republicans call that "pork."

Repealing the 17th Amendment - a great waste of time and money.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

If the 17th Amendment was to be changed (I guess it would have to be repealed and another amendment put in its place), the change I would like to see is having all Senate elections be financed by the individual states. That way the senators would work for the citizens of the states, NOT the legislative members.

Jerry Critter
critterscrap.blogspot.com