Controversy on Removing Some Amendments on the US Constitution

http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk-elections/article/candidates-who-want-to-amend-or-repeal-sections-of-the-us-constitution/19665204

(Check This Top News Out – Certain Senators Want to Change Our Rights! – October 7, 2010)

8 Candidates Who Want to Amend the US Constitution

David Knowles Writer

AOL News Surge Desk

(Oct. 7) -- Does the U.S. Constitution grant Americans citizens too many rights?

That seems to be the conclusion reached by some tea party activists and the candidates they have helped propel to victory. While in years past, a scattered number of political aspirants have spoken about scaling back the Constitution so that it more closely resembles the original version, this year's rise of the tea party has resulted in a slew of candidates who view the revered document as bloated.

Surge Desk has a roundup of the politicians who believe that, when it comes to the number of amendments tacked on to the Constitution, less will mean more.

AP / MCT

Sharron Angle [Republican Candidate for Nevada], Joe Miller[Republican Candidate for Alaska State] and Rand Paul[Republican Candidate for Kentucky State] are some of the candidates running this year who have expressed a desire to repeal or amend certain portions of the U.S. Constitution.

THE 17th AMENDMENT

Before the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913, state legislatures, not the voters, appointed the senators from a given state.

Mike Lee [Republican Candidate for Utah State]
In an interview with CNN in July, Utah Republican Senate candidate Mike Lee termed the 17th Amendment a "mistake" that lessened the power of the states. Thought Lee admitted that a repeal of it was unlikely, it is clear that he favors such a move.

Analysis on the Eagerness of Senators for Change in the U.S. Constitution (Particularly the 17^th Amendment) – Negation

by Explorer

            Ok, simply put, the 17^th amendment is a protection for any state to have too much representation in the government.  The lessening of the power of states has a purpose though.  If the 17^th amendment is to be repealed, this not only removes the restrictions on the number of senators that will represent a state, but instead let the state legislatures get to appoint any senator in particular (as long as he/she has the right qualifications based on Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution).  This is where we, the people come into play now. Right now, if there is no senator where there should be one (representing a state) then the 17^th amendment makes the state governor temporarily appoint a senator until an election can be held to fill the position.  So, without this amendment it would be totally in the hands of the legislature.  And this is not the ultimate goal of the U.S. Constitution.  The “Enlightenment” ideas have been around for centuries and they always have something to do about representing the people.  Without this amendment we don’t have a say of who really is apt for the job as Senator.  This seems more like a limit to our right to vote, isn’t it?  Without it, the legislature gets to appoint and all we could do is watch; watching, and hoping that someone has the sense to pick the right guy.  No, that’s not how it works, we need representation and this amendment was thought through before it was ratified.  It was put there on the basis that the people need representation. 

            Imagine if you lived in 1780’s and you were waiting for all these amendment things to happen.  You know that when you’re about 110 years old that these things have value (I presume).  A lot of thought was put into this because of the sole fact that people were going to die if the wrong guy was chosen to lead and/or a state or legislature might end with as much power and King George III back in the 1770’s.  Let’s say, that another 30 years pass by in a wink and you’re now 140 years old and it’s the year 1920.  Man that’s a long time you might say… But it’s not! At this point you can’t just say “oh the 15^th, 16^th, 17^th, and 18^th amends were passed is the last three decades.  Why do I care?” You might just see the next Hitler come up of nowhere if we were not just supported by the 15^th and 17^th amendments.  Now do you know the power of 17^th amendment now?  Without it, it could spell the next Hitler, Civil War, Nullification of Voters Suffrage Rights, National Assembly, Feudalism Governing, “Taxation without representation”, Boston Tea Party, King George III Act, and much, much, more.

            So, what do these two paragraphs sum up to?  It simply means that it means a lot about how this 17^th amendment is treated.  I’m not saying though that this is a firm stance on this topic.  There are many other aspects to this topic also.  The affirmation could be that this could be our next chance for the true color of a corrupt government to be released to the public and show the public the truth of the matter that we need change in the right direction.

è Please do leave comments here whether it’s in the affimation or negation of the topic, and inform me of any new understandings on the topic.  Thanks for reading.