This Friday on the Glenn Beck TV program, he will be talking all about the 17th Amendment. He will outline its history, the damage it has done and what can be done to overturn it and restore a lost check and balance to our Constitution.
Even if you do not watch the show, I implore you to PLEASE watch this show on Friday and tell everyone you know to do the same. This is SO important!
Even if you do not watch the show, I implore you to PLEASE watch this show on Friday and tell everyone you know to do the same. This is SO important!
I wonder if this is coming too soon. What I mean by that is, the timing that would be needed to see this past may not come till after the almost sure shift of power that will come this next election. Right now, there is no way the 17th will be repealed. The people in power have way too much money blocking them from doing what might actually be best for the country.
ReplyDeleteSo, is this all too soon? Timing in politics and popular opinion is quite a significant thing.
James I definately understand what you are saying, and I for the most part agree with you. Timing is so important. However, I have an additional perspective:
ReplyDeletePolitical conversions while not exactly akin to religious ones (after all, we are not dealing with matters of the Holy Ghost), they do have some things in common. For example, oftentimes seeds must be planted long before there is any fruit brought forth. As you know, people are usually offered a message many times before they are willing to accept it.
I agree that there is likely to be a large shift of power coming soon. That being said, conversions (religious or political) take time. Now is the time to educate people and get them excited about looking into matter such as this more deeply so that when the time for action comes around, they have already hada conversion process and know what direction they want to go and what they want to do.
I think waiting until the power has shifted to build consensus and knowledge of this issue will be waiting until it is too late. Things in politics usually move slowly.
Its not that I expect the 17th Amendment to be repealed anytime soon. I think it could happen within the span of a few years from now however.
Personally I just think that is the fundamental issue to getting debt under control and retaining (or returning) power back away from the central power. I feel it is the key issue for freedom, but i understand it is not well understood and in fact most people totally misunderstand when first exposed to it.
Perhaps too much time can also give opposition time to mount their own offensive. If the powers that be are in control of causing the national debt, perhaps those same powers that be are in control of lowering it to calm the fears that are fueling the fire. Perhaps I am sounding a little to conspiracy theorist. Who knows....
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand, if 2/3 of the States Legislatures vote to do so, they can force the Federal Congress to hold a Constitutional Covention regarding the issue. The propsal will then send its own delegates. Once the Convention is convened, the State Legislatures will then vote for ratification of an amendment. If 3/4 of the States ratify the amendment, it passes.
ReplyDeleteState legislatures being able to force a Constitutional Convention is a check and balance aginst federal power that has not yet been undone.
This is how I understand it to work. If I am incorrect in one or more particulars, someone please correct me.
I fail to understand why having Senators elected by a bunch of corrupt politicians instead of voters would help anything. There were multiple cases of bribery leading up to the adoption of the 17th amendment where wealthy men bought off state legislators to vote them into office. There were lots of cases in which deadlocked legislatures failed to elect anyone and the state went without representation in the Senate.
ReplyDeleteThe Senate is an undemocratic institution by design. It was created to thwart the will of the people and preserve the privileges of wealthy property owners. If there's one thing our current political system doesn't need, it's an expansion of the power of wealthy interests and that's what the Senate's role has always been. Making this body even less democratic is hardly likely to strengthen the union. Getting rid of it would.
There are several reasons why Senators need to be appointed by State legislatures Charles, but we have been over this all before so it seems you arent paying attention, otherwise you would know the answer to such a question. You may not agree with the answer but you would know what reasons are given.
ReplyDeleteHere they are:
1) Because of the Bill of Rights, the central government is only supposed to function in ways that are specifically enumerated. With respect to the national constitution, States enjoy the opposite function. That is, so long as they are not acting in ways that violate federal statute, they can design their governments to do whatever they want. Citizens of States can enumerate or leave general the functions of thier governments as they see fit into almost limitless realms.
This keeps most powers checked away from the central government.
2) In order for States to keep their powers from being usurped from the federal government, Senators were sent to Washington to represent its interests, NOT the peoples. That job belongs to the House.
3) There is nothing undemocratic about Senators being appointed by States. If it were not so, the People would have a seat at the table in the national congress, but where is a seat at the table for States? States are very organized to keep power in Check. They serve as a bulwark, a firewall between the People and the Central government. Getting rid of the Senate is one of the worst ideas I have heard in a very long time. How about restoring the organization to its original purpose? That is far more sound.
4) Because people are supposed to elect their State Legislatures knowing that one of their functions is to vote in-house as to whom they will decide to send to Washington DC to represent their State, this forces citizens to pay much closer attention to the State politics.
Most people can tell you whom their two Senators and who their House Rep is in DC, but how many people can tell who their State Senators and House Reps are? Try it yourself, go ask a bunch of people.It is FAR fewer. Any why? Because much of the power that used to be handled by them has been usurped to the central government. They just arent as important as they used to be. Isnt this situation the opposite aim of someone who says they want to "decentralize" and "localize" decision makings?
5) There will always be people whose aims are less than noble, we may even call it corrupt. It is a condition of humanity. No laws will change that. However, the 17th Amendment has taken the highlight of some bad situations and turned it infinately worse. For example, certain states occasionally being deadlocked in whom to send to the Senate does hurt that State in the short term, but it doesnt punish the other States at the same time, they still have a seat at the table of the central Congress. Removing all States seats at the table is infinately worse than the occasional deallock in getting an appointee there. Simple stuff, easy to see, my 7 year old son gets it.
6) You will notice that the census expands seating in the House, which is filled with the will of the People in direct elections, but the census does not expand the amount of seating in the Senate. They all get two each. No more, no less.
You have got to get over the idea that the Senate is about the will of the people. It is only indirectly. The will of the People is the prerogative of the House.
ReplyDeleteStatements to the effect that the Senate exists to thwatrt the will of the people is just inane. And stop with the class warfare rhetoric like "preserving priveleges of wealthy property owners". In the first place, all property owners should be defended in their priveleges. As you know, private property is one of the most fundamental necessities for any society to thrive and be stable. The pursuit of happiness is not possible without private property. It is one of the most crucial elements of liberty, the abolition or dimunition of which leads to tyranny and misery and society deconstuction.
It is tiring to listen to or read the lunacy of class warfare rhetoric. The wealthy are a minorityand deserve protection in their status as much as anyone else. This is the most socially and economically mobile society on earth. We dont have a caste system, and class struggle rhetoric spouted here makes me want to vomit.
This is all about protecting the intent of the Bill of Rights.
You cannot be taken seriously in your critiques about the power of the central government if you are against restoring seats at the central legislature to the very organizations most equipped to keep such central power in check: States. You notice genius of the original system that there are seats at the table reserved for pure democracy as well, seats filled by direct election of the people. Those seats, that House in particular is where democracy belongs in the Congress. But that House goes up to bat agaisnt (or with) the central power with the other House (The States, ie the Senate).
Just because there have been instances in the past where there was deadlock or bribery in the State appointed Sneate system is not reason to eliminate it. By that logic we should elimate the Hosue as well, since those same things have been found there as well. We should elimate the Judiciary as well, since they have been found there.
While we are at it, please show me any governmental sysytem in the history of civilization that has NOT had those negative elements pop up from time to time. We strive for ideals but we still live amongst humans, and they tend to be very easy to corrupt. Hence the need for checks and balances, such as States and People both having a pressure point to put on that central power.
This is self evident stuff. Persist in untruth if you insist.
This is lunacy. First of all, the states barely exist as separate entities with separate interests anymore. You can travel from one state to another and never know you are in a different place except for the prevailing license plate design. We are a large homogenized country dominated by huge multinational corporations. No matter what state you're in, you buy your home from the same real estate firms, borrow the money from the same banks, shop at the same stores and drive the same cars. It's not the 18th century any more.
ReplyDeleteWhat would really happen if the 17th amendment were repealed? The state legislatures would become even more corrupt as corporate money floods in to buy Senate seats and Senators would be even more beholden to the wealthy interests than they are now.
You want ideals, checks and balances? Then let's increase democracy and decrease the influence of money. Want a Constitutional Convention? Then let's have one that amends the Constitution to state that the rights enumerated in the Constitution apply only to natural persons, not to corporate entities. Let's have an amendment that prohibits any person from donating more than $1000 to political campaigns in a single year and requires broadcasters to air debates of all the candidates free of charge. Let's amend the Constitution to require instant runoff voting and proportional representation instead of winner take all.
You are right this is lunacy. This has nothing to do with the 18th century. With any organization, as it grows larger the is a more urgent need for decentralization. All the power cannot be at the top or it will collapse under its own weight.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to your statements about realestate firms,banks, reatil stores and driving, States do have varying laws. It is the federal governemtn that keep sstepping in to homogenize.
Most of that homogenization has happened in the last century (roughly) since 1913 when the 17th was put into place. States have indeed been greatly weakened since then.
There are many areas in which States would like to break away from that homogenization however, and in many cases they should have the perogative to do so. Think about issues such as abortion, health care, education, welfare & social safety nets, product and business licensing, gambling, utility policy, energy, natural resource usage, on and on. There are a vast array of issues where States currently still differ and many where they have been forcefully homogenized but the will of the people in those States would like to go do something different if given the opportunity.
Your desire for punitive actions agaisnt the ability of individuals and groups to incorporate would be deadly to business growth. Your idea of regulating broadcasters and money donations goes against my notions of freedom, but I will meet you halfway on these two issues again.
If you and I were voters in the same State I would be willing to at least have the conversation with you about the merits or perils of such legislation at our State level. We could do those things in our State as long as the Supreme court did not rule them unconstitutional.
What I would never entertain is a conversation about those things at the national level however.
This is all consistent with the agreed up ideals of power dentralization and localism in decision making. The fact that our population is much larger and issues so much more complex than was found in 18th century America, is actually a STRONGER argument to use in favor of the 9th and 10th, not a weaker one. All these decisions should not be made at Washington DC. I dont even think they should the bulk of be found at the State level, as I am a big County and Municipality kind of guy, but each State can be free to see what works best for them. Perhaps you vision for New York would be for your State to adminster all needed govt. functions there. Perhaps wy vision for Washington State is to reserve most functions for Counties. Either way, we ought to have the decentralization of power to be localized in our States so that we each get what we want where we live.
This was always the best plan. We have tried it the other way sicne the days of Woodrow Wilson. It is time for us to learn from the mistake (17th Amendment) and return back to the rightful balance of power.