Calls for repeal has been floating around for a while, and, is another Libertarian concept- I saw Ron Paul supporters with signs advocating repeal at that teabag rally I attended last year. The reasoning is simple: by repealing the 17th Amendment, we will get rid of the "special interests" that have corrupted the process. It would. The "special interests" would control the process, in my opinion.
Several websites have sprung up pushing the idea of "re-Federalizing" the Congress, by repealing the right to directly elect our representatives in Congress and the Senate.
http://www.restorefederalism.org/ has this little nugget:
The "winner take all" mentality and the resulting bitterness that grips partisan Washington today is one direct result of the 17th Amendment.
He's referring of course to Health Care Reform. The author of the article is all Federalist on us, leaving out the very specific reason for the Amendment's introduction: the slow march towards corruption, Patronage, and Congressional no-shows, like the Delaware delegation. I will add, that the author of this article gives both the pros and cons of repeal, however heavily tilted to the "pro" column.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Originally, each Senator was to be elected by his state legislature to represent his state, providing one of the many American governmental checks and balances. The delegates to the Convention also expected a Senator elected by his state's legislature would be able to concentrate on the governmental business at hand without direct, immediate pressure from the populace of his state, also aided by a longer term of six years than the two year term afforded to members of the House of Representatives.
This process worked without major problems through the mid-1850s, when the American Civil War was in the offing. Because of increasing partisanship and strife, many state legislatures failed to elect Senators for prolonged periods. For example, in Indiana the conflict between Democrats in the southern half of the state and the emerging Republican Party in the northern half prevented a Senate election for two years. That partisanship led to contentious battles in the legislatures, as the struggle to elect Senators reflected the increasing regional tensions in the lead up to the Civil War.
After the Civil War, the problems multiplied. In one case in the mid-1860s, the election of Senator John P. Stockton from New Jersey was contested on the grounds that he had been elected by a plurality rather than a majority in the state legislature.[1] Stockton defended himself on the grounds that the exact method for elections was murky and varied from state to state. To keep this from happening again, the Congress passed a law in 1866 regulating how and when Senators were to be elected from each state. This was the first change in the process of senatorial elections. While the law helped, there were still deadlocks in some legislatures and accusations of bribery, corruption, and suspicious dealings in some elections. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906, and 45 deadlocks occurred in 20 states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating Senators. Beginning in 1899, Delaware did not send a senator to Washington for four years.
In 2004, Alan Keyes, Zell Miller came out in favor of repeal. Why? Well, for Keyes, it was his hope, in my opinion, that it would get him appointed to Congress. For Miller, either contempt or it was contempt.
John Dean on the subject a reasoned, well thought out essay on his opinion as to why it should be repealed.
One needs to wonder, now that Corporations are able to exercise their Free Speech Spending rights, how much Corporate money is going to be funneled into this campaign. For if they can control even the State's legislature's, they can control the Nation's? After all, local elections are cheaper to buy than National and give a better return on their "Free Speech Dollars".
NOTE: I AM UNABLE TO REPLY TO COMMENTS, DUE TO CHARTBEAT.NET HANGING UP MY BROWSER