Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:50:30 -0700 From: rsrchsoc@ionet.net (John Wilde) Subject: [lpaz-discuss] Re: [LibertarianExchange] 17th Amendment is not a problem (was: RECOGNITION OF AN EMERGENCY STA To: LibertarianExchange@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Roderick,
I am going to suggest something on the 17th Amendment. Leave it as it is, and use it for the tool that w have been provided with.
There is a rule of statutory construction that repeals of previous provisions are not to be implied, by subsequent amendatory language. Repeals must be expressed specifically in the new enactment. Can anyone identify the anywhere in the 17th Amendment that repealed Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 regarding the legislature choosing the Senators? You can't because it does not exist.
So what does that mean?
I submit to you that both the 17th Amendment and Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 are both operating at the same time. They are not in conflict with each other and can be harmonized. What it does is leaves it up to the individual states to decide which method will be used to choose the Senator. By popular vote under the 17th or by the legislature of the state under Article I, Section 3, Clause 1.
The reality here is not who chooses the Senator, but who controls the Senator after they get to Washington. All the 17th Amendment did was provide another alternative for choosing the Senator, but like it or not they are still the representatives of the States and not the people of the States. In other words, those two men or women from each State answer directly to the State Legislature and the Governor of the State not directly to the people of the state.
What is the remedy? There are two and it depends upon which state you live in.
In a state in which you have the power of citizen initiative and referendum, propose an initiative to amend your state constitution that requires the legislature of your state to choose and supervise the senators from your state.
In states where the citizen initiative and referendum doesn't exist then it is time to start cozying up to your legiscritters (we here in Arizona call it "Take a Bureaucrat to Lunch.") and submit a proposed legislative proposal or constitutional amendment to introduce in the legislature that would require the state legislature to begin choosing the Senators.
Here is the advantage of this method over repealing the 17th Amendment. It would take two thirds of both the house and the senate to submit the repealing amendment (and I have swamp land in the Arizona Desert to sell you) and it would take three fourths of the State's to ratify the amendment. By using an initiative process or the legislative proposal is used then, it would only require getting 26 of the state legislatures to begin choosing their Senators in order to get majority control of the Senate.
It means that you are going to have to learn to do is engage in hardnosed, in your face, no compromise political activism. And your going to have to commit a few years to the process. It is not going to happen the first time you go at it. You are going to have to keep going back until it happens.
Now there are people who say that the Courts will not agree with my "interpretation" of the circumstances. I say so what. Yes, there will be opposition. Those that would oppose this fundamental change in our system, returning it back to its roots of 88 years ago, can not take the chance that my "interpretation" is correct.
But here is the advantage of that, you will know how important the issue is by how loud your opponents are and by the quality and quantity of the opposition. If it is minimal, both publicly and behind the scenes, then the issue is not as important as you thought. A lot of time an issue like this will not receive a lot of public opposition, even if the issue is important and a threat to the status quo, but the grapevine and good ole' boy network will certainly show a tremendous amount of opposition if it is important. (BTW when I first introduced this 5 years ago here in Arizona, the grapevine and good ole' boy network was very noisy with opposition. Yes there is proposed text that can be tailored for your state's constitution.)
What this also means is that the people in this "movement" as a whole are going to have to take this up personally, instead of waiting for someone else to do it. If you are looking to "repeal" the 17th Amendment, that means waiting for Congress and the States to Act. By taking the initiative (pun intended) you can control whether the issue will be fully aired out.
So the choice is yours. To modify the words from an earlier Olivia Newton-John song "Let's Get Political" (The song was Let's Get Physical).
The 17th Amendment was a lemon to be sure and the nation turned sour in part because of it. I intend to make that lemon into sweet tasting lemonade, with a little help from many friends.
g'day John Wilde
CrazyLibertarian@aol.com wrote:
> I agree with the idea of grassroots efforts with petitions but
> I'm not sure
> what your goal is. I wopuld recommend that the petitions be to
> repeal the
> 16th and 17th amendments.
>
> Roderick T. Beaman
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor [www.newaydirect.com]
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> LibertarianExchange-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.