Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

17th Amendment of the Constitution

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 9:36:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The 17th Amendment has been called the most "unconstitutional amendment" for violating the separation of powers constructed by the Founding Fathers.

What do you think?
Do you like the Amendment?

The 17th Amendment:
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution."
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 10:06:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't feel all that strongly one way or the other about this amendment, since the separation of powers, and the Constitution itself, doesn't really mean much anyway. The government can do whatever it wants, no matter what the Constitution says. Look at the state of the Bill of Rights in the Drug War. For example, asset forfeiture laws. Police can take any property they claim is connected to a crime, without a trial or any due process. But the 4th amendment protects individuals against unreasonable search and seizure, right? Wrong. You see, when police take your house, they aren't punishing you without due process. They're punishing your property. At least, that's the legal justification.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 10:24:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 10:06:52 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I don't feel all that strongly one way or the other about this amendment, since the separation of powers, and the Constitution itself, doesn't really mean much anyway.

Many people attribute your conviction on the latter to the 17th Amendment being ratified.

The government can do whatever it wants, no matter what the Constitution says. Look at the state of the Bill of Rights in the Drug War. For example, asset forfeiture laws. Police can take any property they claim is connected to a crime, without a trial or any due process. But the 4th amendment protects individuals against unreasonable search and seizure, right? Wrong. You see, when police take your house, they aren't punishing you without due process. They're punishing your property. At least, that's the legal justification.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 10:25:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 10:24:07 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 8/21/2010 10:06:52 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I don't feel all that strongly one way or the other about this amendment, since the separation of powers, and the Constitution itself, doesn't really mean much anyway.


Many people attribute your conviction on the latter to the 17th Amendment being ratified.

The government can do whatever it wants, no matter what the Constitution says. Look at the state of the Bill of Rights in the Drug War. For example, asset forfeiture laws. Police can take any property they claim is connected to a crime, without a trial or any due process. But the 4th amendment protects individuals against unreasonable search and seizure, right? Wrong. You see, when police take your house, they aren't punishing you without due process. They're punishing your property. At least, that's the legal justification.

The separation of powers stopped being relevant long before that (See: John Marshall, nullification, etc).
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.