Enforce the 10th, or repeal the 17th?

WND has this interesting report on the efforts of at least one state to rein in the federal government:

"The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay,"

I applaud the sentiment, but I believe the effort's misplaced.

As originally intended, the constitution set three branches of goverment, designed to be checks and balances against one another (even within the legislative branch). The representatives were to be directly elected (to represent the people), with the senators to be chosen by the state legislatures to represent the interests of the states (to prevent such tripe as unfunded mandates). As usual, humans involved in any governmental scheme will abuse the power, once they figure out how to game the system ..... and they did. A civil war and the subsequent re-unification didn't help things a bit.

So the 17th amendment was passed, ostensibly to remove the selection of senators from the corrupt state legislatures, and placed it in the hands of the people (who never, ever are corrupt!). So what happened?

People found out that you could take from Peter to pay Paul. And we lived happily ever after ..... except we really haven't.

So now there are moves afoot to assert states' rights under the 10th amendment. It's my opinion that states should go a little further, and start a movement to repeal the 17th.

pm