Rep. Keith Self’s Resolution to Repeal the 17th Amendment is Real — but the Daily Caller’s Description of How Repeal Happens Is Misleading

What was claimed: A Daily Caller article covering Representative Keith Self’s June 25, 2026 press release said that Self introduced a joint resolution to repeal the 17th Amendment and wrote that "If the resolution passes and is signed into law, it would return the power of electing senators to state legislatures." The item amplified Self’s argument that repeal would restore the Founders’ original design for the Senate and strengthen state sovereignty. What the primary source shows: Rep. Self’s official press release (June 25, 2026) indeed announces that he introduced a joint resolution to repeal the 17th Amendment and lists his cosponsors. The release states the aim is to return selection of senators to state legislatures and frames repeal as restoring federalism. That substantive description — that repeal would return selection to state legislatures — accurately reflects what repealing the 17th Amendment would accomplish if a repeal amendment were adopted. Where the Daily Caller’s language is misleading: The article’s phrasing that repeal would occur if the resolution "passes and is signed into law" conflates ordinary legislation with the constitutional amendment process. Under Article V of the Constitution, an amendment proposed by Congress is not presented to the President and not "signed into law." Instead, a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment must be approved by two‑thirds of both Houses of Congress and then be sent to the states for ratification; it becomes part of the Constitution only after three‑quarters of the states ratify it (or by the alternative convention method if the resolution specifies that route). Saying an amendment is "signed into law" is therefore legally inaccurate and misdescribes the required steps. Evidence on the mechanics: The National Archives and the Library of Congress (Constitution Annotated) explain the Article V process for proposing and ratifying amendments and note that the only successful repeal in U.S. history was the 21st Amendment (which repealed the 18th). The 17th Amendment’s text and history are recorded by the National Archives and the Senate historical resources, which also describe why the 17th was adopted in 1913 and what it changed. What readers should understand: The Daily Caller correctly amplified an active congressional effort to propose repeal of the 17th Amendment and correctly reported the intended substantive effect (returning senator selection to state legislatures). But readers should not take the article’s description of how repeal happens at face value — repeal of a constitutional amendment cannot be achieved by ordinary passage and presidential signature. Repeal would require a supermajority in Congress (or a constitutional convention called by the states) and ratification by three‑quarters of the states, a very high threshold that has succeeded only once (the 21st Amendment’s repeal of Prohibition). Bottom line: The underlying policy proposal and sponsorship are factual and documented; the Daily Caller’s account is misleading in its description of the legal steps required to repeal a constitutional amendment.