Posted on 10/20/2014 7:55:00 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
1900s
In early 1912, Arizona and New Mexico were added to the Union as the forty seventh and forty eighth states. A series of unexpected events and mood swings in public opinion resulted in the federal government robbing the states in balance of power by the ratification of the 16th & 17th Amendments the following year in 1913.
The 16th amendment introducing a personal graduated income tax took over three years to be ratified, but the 17th amendment allowing Senators to be elected by popular vote took less than eleven months. By April of 2013, Congress, the President and all but a few dissenting states, dramatically changed the course of the United States.
There have been amendments protecting citizens and others empowering government. These two damaging amendments empowered government to destroy itself and the nation. No amount of debate, political gymnastics or grassroots effort will every amount to anything until these two amendments have been repealed.
Uncle Sam
Picture Uncle Sam’s two legs tied together (by 17th Amendment – states not represented), given a crutch (lobbyists and a growing bureaucracy), a never ending bottle of alcohol (by the 16th Amendment – progressive tax) and supply of drugs (entitlements). Then see how the establishment of the United Nations at the end of World War II has gradually grown in power while Uncle Sam has grown weak. Every president since then has exercised more and more power, but the country has become weaker and weaker.
If you disagree with me, are in favor of the 16th and 17th amendments, please comment below to tell me why. If you share my views, I would love to hear from you, too. Moreover, I would appreciate your ongoing support.
Dale Christensen is apparently a dark horse candidate for President.
PING!
I never quite understand the arguments against the 17th amendment.
Prior to that time, senators were appointed by state legislatures rather than elected by voters.
What practical difference would it make?
For example, California has two liberal hack Democrat senators, Feinstein and Barbara Boxer.
California Democrats have huge majorities in the state legislature in Sacramento. If they chose California’s senators, they could well choose Feinstein and Boxer as the senators. Since they are Democrats, they would only choose Democrats as senators. No chance for any Republican or other party candidate to make a case to the voters. Because the voters in that case would be all Democrat hack legislators.
So I’m wondering if we would see a major difference in who is elected/selected as senators, if partisan state legislatures chose senators, as opposed to voters.
Congress shall pass no law in which it is exempted from the provisions contained therein.
And no more voting themselves pay raises and no more pensions.
You want a pension? Get yourself a private sector job and start contributing to your own IRA or 401k.
I'm also in favor of repealing the 16th and 17th amendments as well.
Because repealing the 17th Amendment returns electing Senators to partisan deal making and back rooms. You think it’s bad now? And what happens when demographics turn everything blue or, at best, purple. You still OK with that?
Any Party afraid of the popular vote doesn’t deserve to exist and it won’t for long.
Madness.
The intent for the House of Representatives was to be the voice of the people. The intent for the Senate was to be the voice of the states. By changing the way Senators gained their seats, the states were left without representation and the balance of power was upset. This one change is responsible for more encroachment on the many freedoms endemic in the Constitution than any other except perhaps the income tax. We are fully reaping the results of that change now.
Hope that helps you understand the impact of changing how Senators get to Washington. Perhaps one of the experts on Freerepublic will see your post and respond with a better explanation than I am able to give.
But there are something like 56 or 57 other states out there.
I think right now Republican control something like 30 statehouses (I could look it up but that just seems like so much work). That would mean 60 Republican Senators right there.
Assuming those Legislatures had the balls to elect two Republican Senators.
Change your state legislators then.
Senators are suppose to reflect the state government, which is elected by the people.
They were meant to be ambassadors of the state governments to the federal assembly.
The Founders wrote the senatorial rule with an eye to keeping the power of the electorate intact. Congressional representatives are directly elected, senators would be indirectly elected. The electorate would elect state legislatures, then those bodies and the other elected officers of the state(Gov) would elect senators, hence keeping the senate tied to the people, but filtered through the stability of state houses. The idea of short term representatives ( 2yrs) and longer term senators (6 yrs) would give both fluidity and balance to the federal houses- preventing rapid sea changes based on “democracy”.
The 17th made those checks moot. Now, all the hack and pandering occurs at both houses of congress, and we the people, should be rather ashamed.
Remember, at the time of these amendments passing, the nation was in the early throes of progressivism-aka liberalism, sic socialism. Thus the Republic was lost.
Repealing the ever available source of entitlement to the government, and returning balance to the senate would be a start in recognizing the true purpose of our government- to secure essential liberties, not the erode them all for the sake of “equality”. Indeed, some animals are more equal than others- they work harder to make it so.
Defense, foreign trade and relations, that is all we need the national/federal government for. Free states can do the rest, alone or in conjunction with other states, no oversight except that of those states electorates needed.
While we are at itr, allowing only franchised ( taxed) citizens vote may be the real solution to our fiscal and public policy problems.
As long as kids want cookies, mommy and daddy need to be in charge, else the cookie jar will perpetually be empty and the kids overweight....
It seems a lot of evil sh** hit the USA in 1913. The Federal Reserve being chief among them.
Well put, Shake.
The House is the voice of the people while the Senate is the voice of the states. Only now, the states have little if any voice in Washington.
Without the 17th, Senators acted in the best interests of their home state. Yes there were backroom deals and assorted machinations in their appointments, but is that really worse than the current flood of out-of-state money used to get them elected? And states can yank their Senator for not keeping the states’ interests foremost, I believe, which also wouldn’t be so bad.
The 16th just sucks. Repeal the 16th and starve the beast, pure and simple.
I suspect the only way to repeal these two monstrosities is through an Article V convention of the states, which doesn’t scare me like it scares some. Anything passed by an Article V convention would still require ratification, which is a tall fence to jump.
You are right on the money re: the 17th Amendment.
I am in favor of repealing both 16th and 17th Amendments. Repealing both is, at bottom, a FReedom issue!
In the case of the 16h, it is individual FReedom; in the case of the 17th, it is a FReedom FRom federal government interference in states’ rights issue, as you so well state, ShakeNJake.
The 16th Amendment fundamentally altered the relationship of the American people to their government: before the 16th, the people were the master and the government was the slave; the 16th caused a massive role reversal (IT WAS INTENTIONAL!) — people became slaves to their government master.
It is time to replace the income tax with the FairTax, abolish the IRS and repeal the 16th Amendment!
I might point out that the USA can replace the income tax with the FairTax and abolish the IRS without having to repeal the 16th Amendment — the 16th is permissive in nature, IOW, the income tax is not mandatory.
As for the 17th Amendment, you got that one right!
Hey, it only took one hundred years to bankrupt us!
The dead hand of history. All those criminals who did this to us are dead. But the weight of their crimes is still suffocating all of us.
In the middle ages people would be exhumed and burned at the stake for much less.
Saying he's a dark horse may be a bit of an overstatement.
This EXACTLY the problem. The contradiction of the 17th cannot be corrected with band-aids.
The American republic was unique, different from preceding republics. What made it unique was the government acted on two entities, the people and the states. Both were represented. There was internal coherence.
To boot the states from our system made as much sense as booting the people. None.
The 17th Amendment left behind a federal constitution without a federal government.
Absent the 17th Amendment David Dewhurst would be the junior senator from Texas and Bob Bennett would be the junior senator from Utah. Nobody would have heard of Chris McDaniel. Pat Roberts wouldn't have had to leave suburban DC during the entire election cycle.
I hear what people are saying, that the intention was that states are represented in the Senate. But I wonder if we would have different senators, or different types of people as senators, if they were still appointed by state legislatures.
The only reason they didn't set up one year terms for congressmen was the difficulty of 18th century travel. They would recoil in horror at six year terms.
Why have a second popularly derived house of congress anyway?
The Framers relied on the structure of government, divided power, rather than the virtue of individual members to secure our liberty.
The 17th is like adding a rumble seat to a Miata sports car. While technically feasible, both screw up a careful design.
The popular vote was fine for Representatives, but not for President. The electoral college should be alive and well. Unfortunately it is under assault as well.
As for the seventeenth, it should be null and void since the six year term that was not changed by the amendment, was for senators representing the rights of the sovereign States. Representatives of the people which senators were originally not, but by the seventeeth became such, should have two year terms not six.
Article one section 2 so states that representatives chosen by the people shall have a two year term.
For instance, every judge nominated by a rat since FDR has been hostile to the 10th amendment. There is no way a senate of the states would have consented to far left judges these past eighty years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.