Judge Napolitano: Repeal the "Progressive" 17th Amendment For Better Local Representation

Judge Napolitano explains why repealing the 17th Amendment (Direct Election of Senators), which wasn't part of the original Constitution (added by Woodrow Wilson "progressives") will enhance local representation.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Judge
• Napolitano
• 17th
• Amendment
• Glenn
• Beck
• Senator
• Government
• Constitution
• repeal

[airborne373]

HR1207 support it.

[brder4ev]

I am Loving this conversation , wish I was there. There should be conversations like this in every town across America. WAKE UP

[jesusthroughmary]

Federal legislation that affects the States directly affects the people only indirectly. And the principal argument is accountability anyway. 10,000,000 people cannot effectively hold one person accountable. That's why the Representatives were originally limited to representing 30,000 people per district.

[sunset261]

@jesusthroughmary and guess who decides who runs the state? the people do. the people are the very center of our government. "That way the people had their voice on matters that directly affected the people and the states had their voice on matters that affected the states" what are you talking about? The state government isn't some entity existing separately from the people. legislation that affects that states directly affects the people within that state.

[jesusthroughmary]

@sunset261 That's not the point, actually. We have a federal system composed of sovereign states. The government was intentionally created with two houses in the legislature, one to represent the people directly and one to represent the states directly. That way the people had their voice on matters that directly affected the people and the states had their voice on matters that affected the states, and BOTH had to be addressed before a law was considered suitable.

[sunset261]

@jesusthroughmary all elected representatives should represent the people.That's kind of the point of having elected representatives. And i'd much rather have them be representatives of the people like true elected officials should be and not just representatives of our representatives.

[jesusthroughmary]

@Unclesamslair In other words, no elected official should have so many constituents that they can't all possibly communicate with him or her.

[jesusthroughmary]

@sunset261 Senators are not supposed to represent the people. They're supposed to represent the States, who are co-sovereign and the constituent members of the Federal government. The House of Representatives represent the people directly.

[jesusthroughmary]

@Unclesamslair As long as we live in the real world, that will be true regardless of the system. But having a Senator be directly responsible to a mass of 10,000,000 people actually insulates him from the people. It's much easier for me to have meaningful interaction and dialogue with a local representative, who in turn can communicate his district's concerns to our Senators, than for millions of constituents to try to communicate meaningfully with two people.

[Unclesamslair]

@jesusthroughmary interest groups and lobbyists would still play a part

[jesusthroughmary]

@Unclesamslair When a person has 120 people to answer to, those people can have direct influence and have the attention of the Senator. When a person has 10,000,000 people to answer to, the only way to get the Senator's attention is through lobbying groups and money.

[YouAreOneOfUs]

If the corrupt power out there can corrupt ALL the voters (or use corrupt methods like fixed voting machines ect.) how is giving power to State Legislators to elect Senators any better?

First off ALL Politicians are Corrupt (except Dr Ron Paul) and if any are not it is Logical that it would be easier to Influence a few State Legislators than ALL of the states citizen voters.