Why It’s Crucial to Repeal the 17th Amendment | Eastern North Carolina Now

    How could a Senate comprised of representatives appointed by state legislatures been able to prevent the problem with this law? States are exceedingly scrutinous in laws affecting the right to keep and bear arms. Assuming that States select their brightest to represent them in the Senate, the body of Senators would likely have picked up on the "vagueness" problem. The Senate would have refused to affirm the bill, would have sent it back to the House for amending, and then taken it up again only after its constitutional defects were remedied.

    In 2020, several cases were brought citing employment discrimination on the basis of sexual preference and on transgender status. They alleged that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or transgender status. The cases were consolidated in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, and the question before the Court was whether Title VII's prohibition against employment discrimination "because of . . . sex" includes discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation and gender identity.


    The Supreme Court found that each of the plaintiffs was protected under Title VII. In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court found that each of the employees' sex played a role in their adverse employment actions and, applying a literal interpretation of the statute, concluded such discrimination is forbidden. The Court acknowledged the employers' argument that Congress, when it enacted Title VII, contemplated that "the term 'sex' in 1964 referred to 'status as either male or female as determined by reproductive biology.'"

    Congress, in 1964, could have included a provision to ban discrimination based on "sexual orientation" and on "gender identity" but it did not. In dissenting opinions, Justices Samuel Alito (joined by Justice Clarence Thomas) and Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated that the majority departed from Congress's intent when Title VII was enacted. The majority, however, asserted that the statute's text should serve as the measure of Congress's intent and that "when the meaning of the statute's terms is plain, our job is at an end."

    The Supreme Court committed judicial activism in the Bostock case, by substituting its interpretation for the interpretation of the legislature (Congress). What the Court should have done was to remand the bill back to Congress for amending, if deemed important enough. Laws are the supreme province of the legislature.

    How could a Senate comprised on representatives appointed by their state legislatures been able to intervene on such a situation? Such a state-led body of Congress could have issued a public statement asserting a policy whereby the Senate judicial confirmation process will be infinitely more scrutinous, making sure to vet each appointee thorough, pinning them down on where he or she stands on judicial activism, interpretation ideology, views on issues and prior Court opinions, etc. With the Senate being the States' "check and balance" to a president's judicial appointments, its members can make that confirmation grueling.

    In July 2022, the US House passed a federal gun control law - H.B. 7910 ("Protecting Our Kids Act") which would make various changes to the federal firearms laws, including establishing new criminal offenses and expanding the types of weapons and devices that are subject to regulation. Among the other changes the bill proposes to make are the following:

• prohibits (generally) the sale or transfer of certain semiautomatic firearms to individuals who are under 21 years of age;
• establishes new federal criminal offenses for gun trafficking and related conduct;
• establishes a federal statutory framework to regulate ghost guns (i.e., guns without serial numbers);
• establishes a framework to regulate the storage of firearms on residential premises at the federal, state, and tribal levels;
• subjects bump stocks to regulation under federal firearms laws;
• generally prohibits the import, sale, manufacture, transfer, and possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices; and
• requires the Department of Justice to report on the demographic data of persons who are determined to be ineligible to purchase a firearm based on a background check performed by the national instant criminal background check system.
• Think of how a Senate comprised of representatives appointed by the state legislatures would react to such a federal gun control law. States - most states, that is - are very protective of the right to keep and bear firearms without burdensome federal regulations.

    Think of how a State-led Senate would handle the border issue and the illegal immigration issue and the drug trafficking and sex trafficking issues. These are particularly important and critical issues to the States and consequently, they would make sure their representatives in the Senate did the right thing to force the federal government to take its responsibility at the border very seriously.

    The Senate, as the Founders agreed, should be the legislative body for the individual States. They understood that the House of Representatives would be the body that represents the people and therefore, each State would have representation that correlates with its population. The small states, at the Philadelphia Convention, were concerned that this way of selecting legislative representatives would discriminate and be disadvantageous to them and consequently, their influence, their concerns, their issues, etc would be minimized and essentially ignored in the US Congress. The Senate, therefore, was proposed as a co-equal legislative body with equal representation of all States - each State getting 2 senators. It made sense. As a co-equal legislative body, and as a direct representation of the States, the States could feel comforted that they were represented equally by their new "common" government.


    Once again, the transformation of the US Senate in 1913 by the addition of the Seventeenth Amendment to our Constitution weakened one of the strongest connections between Senators and their States as sovereign entities and destroyed one of the strongest and most important of constitutional/governmental checks and balances. It has made it easier for Senators to pay less attention to local or state leaders' concerns about federalism and more prone to follow the popular will, even if it has meant sacrificing State sovereignty, and we have certainly seen this over the past 100 years or so. Our Founding Fathers and the drafters of our precious founding documents did their jobs with the utmost skill and intelligence, basing all decisions upon a diligent study of history, with the urging of Providence, and with their ultimate goal in mind - the preservation and security of individual rights and liberty.

    I'll make the point yet again - The Constitution holds all the answers for the problems that are plaguing our country. And most of the problems stem from a government that has consistently ignored its Constitutional limits, has been overly ambitious, and has played more to politics than to the American people. Furthermore, ambitious politicians and ambitious political parties have weaponized the federal government for their own purposes. One particular remedy, the US Senate, as described and recognized in the original Constitution (Article I, Section 3) is very important as it puts the power of the States directly in the business of government. Unfortunately, the Seventeenth Amendment was passed to take that remedy away.

    I therefore urge citizen activists to contact their state representatives and their DC representatives to demand that the Seventeenth Amendment be repealed. This way, having US senators selected by state legislatures and therefore acting for the benefit of state interests, state sovereignty, states' rights, can once again be an immediate and powerful check and balance on the federal government, integrated physically and meaningfully in the very design of the legislative branch. Of course, keeping the federal government limited and confined to the restrictions in the Constitution, is the best way to maintain and secure our precious and essential rights and liberties.

    Of course, the most important reason to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment is to restore the rightful balance of power between the federal government and the State governments, and in doing so, restoring the rightful balance of political power between the federal government and the People.

judicial activism     I hope I have made that point clear.

    REPEAL THE SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT !!!

    References:

    Federalist No. 45 (written by James Madison) - https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp

    Interpretation of Article I, Section 3, The Constitution Center - https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/765

    Kentucky Resolutions of 1799 (written by Thomas Jefferson), The Avalon Project - https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/kenres.asp

    Virginia Resolutions of 1798 (written by James Madison) - https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/virginia-and-kentucky-resolutions

    Thomas DeLorenzo, "The Lunatic Left is Getting Desperate," Lew Rockwell, March 22, 2010. Referenced at: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/03/thomas-dilorenzo/smearing-ron-paul-and-states-rights/

    Henry Lamb, REPEAL 17 NOW! Why the 17th Amendment Should Be Repealed and How to Do It, National Center for Constitutional Studies, January 2011.