The 17th Amendment is against the spirit of the Constitution as originally written

June 4, 2016, 5:19 pm

Agree12 Disagree5

71%
29%

The debate "The 17th Amendment is against the spirit of the Constitution as originally written" was started by RogueAmerican on June 4, 2016, 5:19 pm. 12 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 5 people are on the disagree side. People are starting to choose their side. It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.

RogueAmerican posted 12 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 7 arguments to the disagreers part.

RogueAmerican, prajjwal, Daffa8799 and 9 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, SueAnnMohr and 3 visitors disagree.

It is also not true to say that the states could not check the powers of government. Due to seperate spheres of influence, a state could, with proper article 3 standing, pursue legal action against the US if a legitimate cause for wrongful doing was found. and this does still happen

The problem is though that we get these laws now that ignore the states. They are huge overreaches into the states sovereignty and nobody cares because nobody is beholden to state power.

3 years ago

But your definition lf the federalists is shamefully wrong. They were those who supported the constitution, which by its very nature produced a stronger central government. They had just fought a war to rid themselves of a monarchy--they werent eager to institute a new one. They believed that the confederate system under the Articles gave too much to the states and cannot sustain itself. The first few articles of the federalist papers show an intention to defend against internal strife, but eliminate tyranny. They werent for an unfettered central government, but rather one that was limited.

The anti-federalists opposed the constitution because they feared that losing the confederacy meant losing all control of the nation. Their fears were that a central government would destroy the sovereignty of the states. Many of these issues were either reconciled by explanation or by compromise.

3 years ago

As i said, powers are given to government by a willing population. And yes, many issues in the convention were addressed in order to defend the worries if the anti-federalists. But those compromises created what the constitution is. The federal government also doesnt create power. The powers of the feds are completely addressed in articles 1-3. However, it is rampant within the federalist papers that the states themselves would be the primary source of liberty.

Again, that opinion i believe proves my point. If you remove the states from the senate, you are removing a huge security.

Commonly you say the senate should be like the House. But the framers made a seperate chamber for the states, and also went on in the federalist papers to convince that they should be distinct.

But having separate spheres of influence was given to the government in order to better preserve rights. Neither one could ever come to dominate the other, besides the supremacy clause, but that in itself aligns with the article 1.8 powers.

3 years ago

government, including states, do not have rights, they dictate what rights the give and protect for citizens. it's like asking if God gave himself life. the word life as we know it wouldn't even apply to god. (no metabolism, no reproduction, no change of any kind) just like the word rights doesn't apply to government. government has "powers," and the powers of the state's are clearly dictated by the Constitution... anything already not legislated by the Fed that doesn't contradict the Constitution.

the Fed doesn't keep the states in check. it dictates directly what the states can and cannot do. the states don't keep the Fed in check. the fed checks itself thanks to divided government.

the federalist did not fight for states rights but against them (hence the name federalists, with the word fed clearly in it.) the reason the gave states any power is so that the states would accept the Constitution despite their fear of a strong central government (not as tea parties think of fed today, but straight up monarchy.)

if the people was just to advocate for enlightened government it would be just "for the people" and without the "by the people"

by th people makes it clear that the people are the government.

3 years ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

Do you not see the propensity for a senator to ignore states rights? He isnt culpable. If people want something in general, they lobby their house member. A senator now has no care for whether he is voting away a states power. The state legislatures can do absolutely nothing. And people dont care about the rights of the states. There should be interaction between congress and the people. Im not arguing to destroy the house. Just that the senate should return to its constitutional foundations.

"We the people" isnt advocating for democracy but instead for an enlightened government. We just have to look to jefferson for that, "that to preserve these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed". So what does that mean? Its an affirmation of a new revocable social contract. Nothing more or less but that a government should serve the people by protecting its rights.

Also if the people are the state, then how is it wrong to preserve the power for those who keep guard over their perspective rights. The ambition of men tells us that a state will try to maximize power, but they are checked by national government. Same goes for the national, and it is checked by the states. If states alone are looking to expand their power because they want a larger domain, why would an individual care if they lost it? The point is they wouldnt and that has become the trend of 20-21st century legislation.

3 years ago

I disagree on a fundamental level. I believe that the people of the state are the state. just like the people of the nation are the nation. and the more say they have in their government the better.

and the spirit of the Constitution agrees with me on that. with lines like "we the people" and "by the people for the people." That is what the founding fathers tried to accomplish, the first ever government of the people on a grand scale.

3 years ago

The people already have access to congress by means of the House of Representatives. What then was the point of making a body just to have it identical to the other in purpose? The senate was to be the connection to the state, and likewise, the House to the people. They are two different bodies entirely with different roles. House starts appropriations while the senate is more of a hold of officials and foreign policy.

So no; having the senate as a state connection doesnt hurt the peoples liberty. It wasnt established to be represent the people, but the state. And surely the people originally chose the electors.

Im not arguing for a pure Republic; but rather a much more protective democratic republic that upholds its intended federalism.

Anyway, the people do pick the president, but it filters through the electoral college to protect smaller states. There have been faithless electors, but that is rare and punished in many states. The senate has nothing to do with the president. In the case that there is no majority, the vote goes to the house. With one vote per state and in the hands of the representatives chosen directly by the people.

3 years ago

no one brought up anarchy...
of course you need government but can't people at least choose their own representatives?

or do you believe just the representatives is enough? why do they even need to decide the president? the Senate that was picked by the representatives that were picked by the people can pick the president, right?

of course you need government, but the people should have as much say in it as possible. and I think that was the spirit of the Constitution.

3 years ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

My bad 4 i had 5 stuck in my head

3 years ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

I believe in article 5, and the 9th and tenth amendments. I dont like consolidated power. I prefer state policy over federal policy.

Im not an anarchist. Government is crucial, but the 17th centralized power in the national government.

3 years ago

"Because individuals vote for what they want, not what the state should do."

from our past debates, you came across as a minimum government Republican and as someone who assumes government is incompetent and should leave most decisions to private citizens.

I don't understand how you suddenly think the state government would be the competent voice leading in the right direction. seems hypocritical.

3 years ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

Because individuals vote for what they want, not what the state should do. Not many care whether or not the government takes states rights, but the state itself does not want to lose power. Therefore taking away the states opinion in government restricts states right in a de facto manner.

3 years ago

I don't see this as a state vs federal issue but as a citizen vs government insiders issue.

how does allowing citizens to vote for their representatives strengthen the federal government. are citizens not part of their respective states as well?

3 years ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

In hopes that smaller states could have a voice. It also was further reconciled for the anti-federalists so that they would be guaranteed protection from the national government. This was formed by the state legislatures choosing representatives.

3 years ago

the protection of the rights of smaller states was in regard to equal number of Representatives, not in how they were elected.

3 years ago

In efforts to provide power to smaller states. Senates only purpose was to satisfy the New Jersey Plan by allowing a small state to have power. In further efforts to reinforce federalism, it is critical that a state maintains its distinct powers.

Having two direct elections creates a stronger federal government which our founder strove to prevent.

3 years ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

the Senate is by far the more powerful half of Congress. What is the benefit of taking the say away from the people?

3 years ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

No. But that was the sole construct of the House of Representatives. The senate used to be a body for states

3 years ago

why do you care for states rights over individual citizen say? it's not like the Fed is appointing senators and the federal government stole states rights. the power was given to the people, an even personal form of representation.

do you find something wrong with allowing the people to choose their leaders?

3 years ago

I believe that a direct election of senators misplaces congressional powers. Instead of maintaining a federalist system in which we were founded, it removes state interest from congress allowing for a transgression of states rights. Legislatures would not allow the voting away of their rights in favor of a overarching national government; however, senators are culpable to the people which lends itself to ignore the powers of the states.

3 years ago
Discuss "The 17th Amendment is against the spirit of the Constitution as originally written" philosophy politics
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.