Main Navigation
The 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution has done more to harm the 50 states than any other legislation or amendment to date. In doing so, it has placed the country in a dangerous and precarious situation, A $17 TRILLION DEBT. This web site and Repeal17 PAC is dedicated to overturning and repealing the 17th Amendment.
The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. Thereby, effectively removing the 50 States representation as originally designed in the Constitution. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures.Below are three ("poster boys") entrenched Senators that basically do what they want to do. Not only because they are egotistical and arrogant, but because they know their constituents have a very short memory span (less than 6 years) in addition to the fact that they also have very large campaign "war chests" that few challengers can match. This is the very reason the 17th Amendment should be repealed. The Senate is to represent the State's interest not large donors or the Senator's personal position. State legislatures, unlike the everyday voting citizen, don't have short memories. State legislatures by definition are political in nature and more astute than the average voter. The Senate was designed to have ebbs and flows as each state goes through their own cycles of political discourse and change. That's why Senators terms are 6 years. Effectively, as a state changes there is a natural term limit for Senators. More to the point, Senators should not have campaign "war chests" full of money. Think of all the money one Senator spends just to get elected. Jon Terbush who wrote What it costs to win a Congressional election for The Week on Yahoo dated 3/11/2013:
- According to MapLight, candidates who won their Senate elections in 2012 raised an average of $10,476,451 for their campaigns.
- Even the cheapest Senate seat required a hefty sum to secure, with Sen. Angus King (I) winning the race for Maine's vacancy on the back of roughly $3 million in campaign contributions.
- Progressive icon and Wall Street critic Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) raised $42.5 million, by far the highest total of any 2012 winner, in her bid to unseat Republican Scott Brown.
Is there any wonder that preferential treatment (favors) are granted and provided for large donations and bundlers. The 33 Senators successfully running for office in 2012, raised $346 million. Which
means their opponents raised roughly the same amount so the Senate
races took $690 million to decide who will represent the voters in the
"Super House of Representatives" (Senate). House of
Representatives races were far cheaper than Senate contests, with
victorious candidates raising an average of about $1.7 million. But sure, they were cheaper, they have to be... There are 435 seats and they run every 2 years. So those who won raised $739 million. Their opponents raised just as much, making it (the election for the House of Representatives) cost roughly $1.5 BILLION!!! That is $1.5 Billion and growing every two years... But that is the House of Representatives and this is simply a side note...
The amount of money required to be elected to the Senate is reprehensible and indicative of a broken system. The correct system for the Senate is that each state legislature nominate and elect or appoint their Senators (as outlined in the Constitution), freeing up $690 million that can be invested in capital improvements (job producer), start up company (job producer), or House of Representatives campaigns. More than likely, more money would be spend on local races for the state legislature. Bringing the politics closer to home.
Strategic Plan: Our purpose is to collect money through internet operations for the establishment of a PAC that will help fund political participants that show favorable focus to this organization's intended function of building a grass roots movement for the repeal of the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution. Furthermore, this PAC will reach out to all political organizations in an effort to promote said purpose. More than likely we will find some political organizations will not be an economical or effect use of our time. Thereby we will take note and report on this web site.
REPEAL17 will not be focused on anything other than the repeal of the 17th Amendment. If a candidate is to receive any funds from this PAC, the candidate must first show a true desire to repeal the 17th Amendment and understand its history and articulate the ramifications that the 17th Amendment has had on our political landscape as well as the resulting laws lacking the 50 state's influence.
At the start, we will focus on state legislatures. It is the state legislatures that have lost the political power given them by the US Constitution. It was their purview to appoint their representatives (2) to sit in the US Senate that has been lost as a result of the 17th Amendment. Therefore, without question it is their responsibility to start the wheels in motion to repeal the 17th Amendment. This PAC will only be the impetus to help set in motion the desired push to focus the 50 States to take back what is rightfully theirs; The US Senate...
In this effort, REPEAL17, will reach out to all Conservative organizations in an effort to gain a synergistic alignment with other organizations in an effort to promote REPEAL17. The most favored organizations would be any organization that feels that Americans have been Taxed Enough Already... Our main focus will start with any and all TEA Party organizations throughout the United States.
Most TEA party affiliated organizations have a wide focal plane encompassing many centers of attention. These centers of attention are the result of news events, pending legislation in both the US congress and state legislatures. The cash demands on these TEA party organizations will be greater than REPEAL17's, however we still need to compete for these funds. Money is the life's blood of politics, without it, REPEAL17 has no voice. However, as a result of our narrow focus, we will not need as much.
Our focus will be to reach out to any and all web sites that are willing to allow REPEAL17 to place a hyperlink. We want to encourage people to register and to learn about the 17th Amendment. The focus here is to build a site that will link to other sites noting historical writings, observations and opinions. The secondary focus will be to build an email database where we can disseminate current events to illustrate the difference between Senators elected by popular vote and those elected by the legislature to demonstrate the deleterious effects of the 17th Amendment.
History of the 17th Amendment: The following links give a good review of how we ended up with the 17th Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm
http://www.nhinet.org/hoebeke.htm
Articles:
http://news.yahoo.com/senate-look-without-17th-amendment-095822973.html
The Blue arrows show the original intent of the US Constitution and the Senates relationship with the state legislature. The US Senate was to represent the 50 states with each Senator beholding to their state's legislature for their appointment. Doing so places a natural term limit in place, depending on how the state legislature changes when it becomes time for senate reappointment. The Red arrow shows that the state legislatures have been cut out of the process as a result of the 17th Amendment. Thereby asking the question, does the 10th amendment have any force? Additionally, party affiliation and campaign war chests for senators can be a thing of the past.
Decisions and Control:
Are the decisions made by a Senator in the State's best interest or in the Senator's best interest to get re-elected? By removing the state legislatures from the process, the same process is used by the Senators that is used by the House of Representatives, straight elections. Unfunded mandates are the result. States now have to pick up certain costs mandated by the Federal Government that most state legislatures would have been against (hence Senate would have voted down) but now must be worked into the state budget... Did the US Senate vote these mandates in to help their state or help themselves get re-elected?
