17th Amendment: Necessary Before Nullification?

Suggestion:

No one will care about the 10th Amendment until the 17th Amendment is repealed. We must first have the States represented at the National level. Then, they will be able to assert the 10th Amendment. Otherwise, who cares? That is the stance that the National Government has. Give the States a voice on the National level, then things can get done!

Original poster

Response:

Thank you for posting your thoughts! Some comments…

We see repealing the 17th as a top-down approach – one that requires a strong national consensus. To us, national approaches like this are a failed strategy.

Nullification, on the other hand, can work when just one state starts things moving – they don’t have to wait for 3/4 of the states to do something.

Repealing the 17th is a “cart before the horse” process. On the other hand, nullification first reasserts the role of the states. And once popular nationally, it will clear the way and create an atmosphere where the 17th could actually be repealed.

That would, generally, be our view.

Here’s two articles that go into more detail – the first showing agreement in principle, and the 2nd showing disagreement on strategy:

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/08/25/on-repealing-the-17th-amendment-part-i-agreement/

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/08/31/on-repealing-the-17th-amendment-part-ii-dissent/

Michael Boldin

0