Kevin Mooney / @KevinMooneyDC / May 11, 2015
“This was a bad progressive idea,” said Assemblyman Michael Carroll, a Republican in Morris Plains, N.J. “The U.S. Senate was much more responsive and accountable prior to the amendment because it had to answer to the states.”
Without the 17th Amendment, said Assemblyman Jay Webber, a Republican in Parsippany, N.J., local party officials could exert influence at the national level.
“In a state like New Jersey, where the county party structure is so strong, you could expect to see influence shift to county chairs and other power brokers,” he said. “What they now do at the state level, they could have been in a position to do nationally.”
Although it might change the priorities of New Jersey’s U.S. senators, repeal of the 17th Amendment probably would not significantly change who served, according to Kim Guadagno, the state’s lieutenant governor.
“The Democrats have a significant registration advantage in the state,” she said. “I’m not sure you would see any kind of major change in who became the U.S. senators. But I am glad to see Justice Scalia focus attention on the amendment and what it meant for the country as a whole.”
Scalia said the trend toward using constitutions as lawmaking documents has increased in recent years as special interests have learned to insert “pet projects” into constitutions.
“A constitution is about setting structure; it is not about writing the preferences of special-interest groups,” he said.
In fact, he said, the less done to the Constitution, the better. During the question-and-answer session, someone asked if a constitutional convention would be in the nation’s interests.
“A constitutional convention is a horrible idea,” he said. “This is not a good century to write a constitution.”
https://dailysignal.com/2015/05/11/supreme-court-justice-scalia-constitution-not-bill-of-rights-makes-us-free/
