Utah legislature tries to defeat 17th Amendment all by itself

[Joe Republic]

Source

Utah Lawmakers Defend Bill to Bypass Voters

By Matt Canham
The Salt Lake Tribune

Utah's Republican senators want to lead the charge nationwide to recapture some of the power state legislatures once held before a constitutional amendment allowed people to vote for their U.S. senators directly.

Utah Senate President John Valentine said SB156, which would allow legislators to pick Senate candidates, as long as the political parties agreed, has nothing to do with sitting Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett.

It's an effort to bolster the power of state leaders, who are more equipped to crack down on unfunded programs foisted upon the states by the U.S. Congress, he said.

"We know more than voters do," Valentine said. "They don't get the chance to hear all that we do." The legislation would also allow lawmakers to "direct" senators by making requests.

Utah Democratic Party Executive Director Todd Taylor called the legislation "shameful."

"It doesn't respect the Constitution. It doesn't respect the voters and it doesn't respect the history that got us here," he said.

A Senate committee is expected to debate the bill, sponsored by Draper Republican Sen. Howard Stephenson, this morning. SB156 has 19 co-sponsors, all of whom are Republican except for West Valley City Democrat Sen. Ed Mayne.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Frankly, I think a case could be made that since not every State ratified the 17th Amendment, it never passed.

[MODU]

It will never fly, but it is an interesting proposition.

[Emsworth]

Frankly, I think a case could be made that since not every State ratified the 17th Amendment, it never passed.

Could you explain? The Constitution clearly specifies that a 3/4 vote is sufficient. The only exception is that states cannot be deprived of equal suffrage in the Senate without their consent, but clearly, that has not happened--every state still has two senators.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Frankly, I think a case could be made that since not every State ratified the 17th Amendment, it never passed.

Could you explain? The Constitution clearly specifies that a 3/4 vote is sufficient. The only exception is that states cannot be deprived of equal suffrage in the Senate without their consent, but clearly, that has not happened--every state still has two senators.

The voters of every State have two Senators now, States have zero.  I reject the notion that the two are identical.  The Founding Fathers were clearly refering to State governments and the 17th amendment deprived of their suffrage.

[Emsworth]

The voters of every State have two Senators now, States have zero.  I reject the notion that the two are identical.  The Founding Fathers were clearly refering to State governments and the 17th amendment deprived of their suffrage.

Article I states that "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof." The Seventeenth Amendment did not affect the first provision--that the Senate shall be composed of two senators from each State. All it did was affect the second provision, the manner of choosing senators.

Instead of being elected by the "Legislature thereof," senators are chosen by the "people thereof"; however, there are still "two Senators from each state.

Also, even if we accept your argument, the equal protection clause is not implicated. If every state government has zero suffrage in the Senate, then, equal suffrage has been preserved--no state has more or less representation than any other.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The voters of every State have two Senators now, States have zero.  I reject the notion that the two are identical.  The Founding Fathers were clearly refering to State governments and the 17th amendment deprived of their suffrage.

Article I states that "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof." The Seventeenth Amendment did not affect the first provision--that the Senate shall be composed of two senators from each State. All it did was affect the second provision, the manner of choosing senators.

Instead of being elected by the "Legislature thereof," senators are chosen by the "people thereof"; however, there are still "two Senators from each state.

I don't see how you can infer that because the Constitution chose one particular part of State governments to elect Senators, it wasn't referring to  to the State governments but the abstract idea of States instead.  It also calls on the Executive Authorities to issue Writs of Election to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives rather than simply leaving it some abstract notion of "State" to be filled in later.  The restrictions on "States" in Article I Section 10 are all clearly aimed at governments and not the citizens of each State.  Indeed, the right of individuals to coin Money, emit bills of Credit, and accept things other than gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt has never been in question despite all of those being denied the States.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even if I accepted the argument that no suffrage is "equal suffrage", there were two years where some States had one Senator while others had two and two years where some States had no Senators while others had none.  The transition period envisaged in the amendment passed by Congress on May 13, 1912 runs afoul of the equal State suffrage provision of Article V, rendering the Article inapplicible until all the States ratify it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Frankly, I think a case could be made that since not every State ratified the 17th Amendment, it never passed.

Uhhhh. No.

[Alcon]

This would functionally give the Utah Republican Party the ability to automatically appoint whomever they wan't to whatever seat they want.

Lovely.

[??????????]

The 17th Amendment needs to be gotten rid of anyhow.

[Emsworth]

I don't see how you can infer that because the Constitution chose one particular part of State governments to elect Senators, it wasn't referring to  to the State governments but the abstract idea of States instead.

There is no distinction made by the Constitution between a state government and the abstract idea of the state as a whole. The two are exactly the same thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On the contrary, even if the People of the State as a whole vote in a referendum, the state cannot officially coin money, emit bills of credit, or make anything other than gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debt.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then the transition period was unconstitutional. But since the transition period is over, that problem is no longer relevant.

[Joe Republic]

The 17th Amendment needs to be gotten rid of anyhow.

I generally agree, but this isn't exactly the intelligent way to do it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then the transition period was unconstitutional. But since the transition period is over, that problem is no longer relevant.

There is no statue of limitations on unconstitutionality.

[Emsworth]

There is no statue of limitations on unconstitutionality.

How does that contradict my statement? Unequal suffrage may have existed then, but it does not exist now.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There is no statue of limitations on unconstitutionality.

How does that contradict my statement? Unequal suffrage may have existed then, but it does not exist now.

It failed to be constitutionally adopted, and therefore is null and void, even if its current application would be valid.  If someone obtains a deed to property via fraudulent means, it doesn't matter if that deed has been honored for decades, even if the property has been sold, resold, and reresold, once the original fraud is discovered, title to the land reverts to he who should have had it.  Similarly, once this amendment is recognized as having not been properly adopted, the original provision that the States elect Senators and not the voters inhabiting each State would apply as they once did and as they should again.

[Colin]

This would functionally give the Utah Republican Party the ability to automatically appoint whomever they wan't to whatever seat they want.

Lovely.

Isn't that what they basically do anyway? I mean its not like they have very lively elections out there.

[Gabu]

This would functionally give the Utah Republican Party the ability to automatically appoint whomever they wan't to whatever seat they want.

Lovely.

The 2004 CNN exit poll in Utah put the partisan breakdown in that state as the following:

Democrat - 19%
Republican - 58%
Independent - 24%

In other words, the Republicans in Utah already decide basically everything, so this wouldn't change a whole lot.