Miller made the comments Monday at a town hall meeting in Fairbanks. Following a question from an audience member about term limits, Miller criticized the culture of the Capital, saying that members of Congress are “treated like royalty.”
He said he supports an amendment imposing term limits as well as repealing the 17th Amendment, the 1913 addition to the Constitution that provides for senators to be elected by popular vote rather than by state legislatures.
Blogs from the Huffington Post to the Washington Post quickly seized on the comment.
A Seattle Post-Intelligencer blog posted the story with the headline “Tea party candidate boils over.”
Miller campaign spokesman Randy DeSoto did not return multiple calls and e-mails seeking comment.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, defeated by Miller in the Republican primary but who has begun a write-in campaign to stay in office, was the first to criticize Miller’s comments, issuing a news release entitled “Joe Miller reaching new extremes every day.”
“We have seen Joe Miller take some extraordinary positions in this campaign, but I never imagined he would support disenfranchising himself and every other Alaskan,” Murkowski said in a statement. “Joe is no longer content with simply taking away federal support for Alaskan families, now he wants to take away their right to select our United States senators.”
The news release ends by asking if Miller would like to repeal other amendments granting women the right to vote and ending slavery.
Democratic candidate Scott McAdams also took issue with Miller’s comments, accusing him of trying to deny Alaskans their constitutional rights and trying to push the Tea Party agenda forward at the expense of Alaska.
“This is just one more example of how Joe wants to repeal the 20th century and hurt Alaska. Alaskans embrace their power to elect their candidates — Joe should know that — that’s the American — and the Alaskan way,” McAdams said in a statement.
Contact staff writer Chris Freiberg at 459-7545.
The House is supposed to be the voice of the People and the Senate the voice of the States.
With the adoption of the 17th Amendment the states lost their voice and the federal government started growing out of control. Senators don't need to really worry about what is best for their states anymore, just what will get the most people voting for them on election day (and the biggest contributions from anywhere).
If the 17th Amendment were repealed that would mean the end of unfunded federal mandates and a big shift of power back to the states where it belongs (and closer to the people).
Is the l9th amendment unconstitutional, as well?
Seems to me that you maintain that virtually everything is unconstitutional if it doesn't support you. How about the 13th amendment? Let's bring back slavery and do away with the women vote!
And, while we are at it, what about this exceptionalism you are now preaching? Sounds a bit like that old master race stuff . Let's hope not!
But, if you think about it, the Black Hummer in the parade followed by a bunch of gun toting supporters is a bit scary, isn't it?
Let's not be complacent folks, since this is how it can start!
McAdams is an individual who has successfully run a government office for five years keeping spending down.
Murkowski has a history of reaching across the political gap and working towards compromise in order to benefit Alaskans.
Miller has a history of taking government handouts then railing against them, and flat out violating the spirit and/or letter of the law (claiming subsistence/low income when he has a 70K job, firing his wife then collecting unemployment, fleecing the government to pay him not to farm land in a different state he would not be farming anyways, etc)
I know your fear of democrats is overwhelming, but ask yourself: is this guy real, or just riding the populist wave to insulate himself on top? The impression I get is that the only thing Miller really cares about is getting that 6-year contract, $178K a year job and the benefits that go with it.
Adding another Democrat to Washington is a non starter. The sum total of Democrat enacted legislation for the last two years is a wrecking ball on the economy, jobs, national security and energy policy. And you want me to believe he will not fall in line with Obama, Begich and the rest of the party?
Lisa is a proven part of the problem with her support of TARP (including protecting her personal investments), support of amnesty for tens of millions of illegals, use of her seat for personal gain and earmarks, stating on TV she would not support repeal of Obamacare.
If her disqualifying voting record was not sufficient, her contempt for the voters, her narcissist and elitist personality and threatening the media to silence free speech cinches her need to be retired.
I will vote for jobs and against the Obama agenda and corrupt incumbents like Murkowski, by voting for Miller.
The people paying Miller's way are David and Charles Koch. You may have a warm and fuzzy idea that the Tea Party - acting through their vessel Miller - will give birth to a bunch of independent miners and Mom and Pop enterprises in Alaska. The reality is that with the Tea Party drones in power, multinational corporations and Koch Industries will be even more successful at doing the one thing they care about: extracting resources, satisfying their share-holders, and growing even larger. They don't give a damn about Alaskan jobs or the environment, the national deficit, or your taxes.
What?
NoaInc, I challenge you to back that up. McAdams has come out in favor of development in Alaska, an both McAdams and Murkowski favor developing ANWR. McAdams has even put forward a few ideas to that effect.
Miller has, as far as I am aware or have read, not put forth any ideas for helping develop Alaska. Sure he wishes all Fed Land was turned over to the State, but there is no possible chance of that happening even if he and every Tea candidate wins next month.
Miller represents economic growth; McAdams and Lisa represent more of the same failed policies and corrupt senate.
Sad that most of the commentators are more concerned about their entitlements than employment.
It about really about a group of people who want to gain power, and they want to keep power.
Sort of a monarchy, didn’t someone make accusations similar to this against someone during the primary. Wasn’t it? Oops!
Yes, outside groups can have a lot of influence, especially on the votes of those they contribute to in Congress. That is why I would not vote for Murkowski who has MANY of those contributors, particularly from the energy and utility companies.
However I refuse to let a member of the legislature (even Hollis) make my decisions for me on senator, when some of them may not be who I voted for. I think the people are intelligent enough to see through the spending on big ad campaigns and make their own decisions. I think they are starting to see through Joe Miller despite the Tea Party money too.
The intelligensia of our state????
Have you met our legislators????? I mean, Alaskan legislators?????
Just saying -- the Alaskan legislature is mostly made up of commercial fishermen, loggers, businessowners, farmers, construction workers -- you know -- regular Alaskans. I'm NOT saying they're not intelligent, but they're not intelligensia. They're citizen representatives.
Look, folks, read the Anti-federalist Papers before you knock the idea of repealing the 17th Amendment. I'm reading them now and it's very clearly explained why the original constitution allowed the Senate to be elected by state legislatures rather than directly by the people.
One of the reasons why we're having the problems that we're having in this country now is that the 17th Amendment gutted the power of the states to act locally. Far more than the commerce clause, the 17th Amendment took control of the federal government away from the states. A senator today is elected, OFTEN, by outside interests. Companies in India or Illinois have more control over the election of an Alaskan senator then does an Alaska-based company. We see this in who is funding Lisa Murkowski's bid to steal the Alaskan Senate seat. Similarly, outside PACs are funding Scott McAdam's campaign. And, yes, Joe Miller is taking support from outside interests as well because that's the only way to level the playing field (if we elect him, we'll have to keep an eye on his voting record and whether or not he's voting with those PACS or with us, just like we should have been doing with Lisa, but weren't).
In the Constitutional Convention notes are recorded debate about whether Congress had the power to destroy the federal system and turn the newly minted United States into a national government without any power left to the states. The convention delegates were afraid of that, especially the delegates from small population states (like Alaska, today). It was determined that Congress would become the mere arm of special interests and public passions if it was allowed to be elected directly by the people. Some delegates, mostly from large-population states that knew they could swing any popular vote their way, didn't think this was a bad thing. Eventually, after a lot of debate, they chose to seperate Congress into two houses. The House would be elected for short terms, directly by the people, because it was reasoned that the people would be stupid from time to time, but wise up within two years. It would reflect the will of the people. The Senate was envisioned as a sober body -- elected by the wise representatives of the state legislatures, with six years to carefully deliberate on the issues and provide stability to the government. For 150 years, that's exactly the way it worked.
In the early 20th Century, the progressives got frustrated because the Senate wouldn't give them the reforms they wanted. They could convince the House to generate bills that promoted their agenda, but the Senate was slow to follow and often blocked their plans. So, they trotted out the 17th to change that. It was followed by such lovely ideas as the 18th Amendment -- that would be Prohibition for the historically and constitutionally-challenged among us. We had to repeal that because it turned out to be a bad idea. They left it in the Constitution, though, so we'd see that we can make mistakes and that we can correct them.
The 17th Amendment has severely weakened state rights and just about destroyed local control of politics. Lisa Murkowski gets very little of her money from Alaskans and so doesn't need us except at election time. We feel the neglect, don't we, folks? We all know we have less say in our government and we complain about federal intrusion. Well, that's caused, in part, by the 17th Amendment.
Repeal the 17th Amendment and the Alaska State legislature would choose our Senators. That makes our choice of legislators far more important than it is now. It also means that the Senate election is now controlled by Alaskans, not outside companies and PACs. And, let's face it, many of us know our legislators personally and can have a large impact with a phone call or an email because they know us as well. Can we say that about Lisa Murkowksi??????? Or, hey, Mark Begich?????
Yes, it led to the most successful century ever achieved by any nation in the history of the world. Terrible.