Posted on 03/04/2015 7:54:42 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
In Deep Blue Maryland, I don’t think it would make much difference. A big-government liberal is a big-government liberal, no matter which way he gets to power.
Hopefully, the state legislature would have more sense than the state's electorate (not including FReepers) seems to have.
That's why a repeal of the 16th Amendment and abolition of the Federal Reserve and re-establishment of sound money (Gold Standard, anyone?) would be essential for a repeal of the 17th Amendment to actually work. Otherwise a given state would simply keep being bribed via loose fiscal and monetary policy into sending Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Douchebag back to DC.
I would change section 3 to require a 2/3 vote to overturn federal laws, federal court decisions and, in light of Obama’s pen and phone, federal executive orders that amount to legislating from the White House.
A perfect constitution can’t function without moral, self-controlled people.
Our system of law depends on positive morally self-controlled people. Because our system didn’t have the state looming over everyone assuming they were guilty and watching their every move. Our positive law system was the opposite of negative law systems all over Europe.
The writer has it wrong as the 17th had noting to do with the founding fathers.
I live there, can I complain?
Appears an awakening to the power of Article V is taking root.
Repeating here an illustrative example of how the power of Article V can be unlocked by the States to restore federalism:
************************************************
AMENDMENT XXVIII
To redress the balance of powers between the federal government and the States and to restore effective suffrage of State Legislatures to Congress, the following amendment is proposed:
************************************************
Section 1.
A Senator in Congress shall be subject to recall by their respective state legislature or by voter referendum in their respective state.
Section 2.
Term limits for Senators in Congress shall be set by vote in their respective state legislatures but in no case shall be set less than twelve years nor more than eighteen years.
Section 3.
Upon a majority vote in three-fifths of state legislatures, federal statutes and federal court decisions shall be overridden.
************************************************
If Section 1 above can be replaced with a repeal of the 17th, then that’s even better but it may be a hard sale. Section 1 above gets the job done by making US Senators pay attention to their State Legislators and at the same time requiring both to interact with the state voters.
I would strongly recommend the following must-see video be watched, consumed and studied:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdZuV8JnvvA
And I would strongly recommend all to urge respective state senators and state representatives, and the people that work for them, to view it
Yes, it was originally 2/3’s but Mark Levin advocates 3/5’s to facilitate that power, to make it easier for States to invoke. I am now inclined to agree.
And I thought too of adding Executive actions and orders but need a definition to capture all Executive malfeasance. If the word ‘Executive Order’ is used, a President like Obama can skirt the consequences by declaring his moves as ‘Executive Actions’ which is exactly what he has done. This needs further definition but the Amendment 28 above is just an example and illustrates what state legislators could and should be taking up.
The goal is to get state legislators meeting and talking about it, debating terms and definitions of an amendment that will restore their role in addressing the business of federal government through their US Senators. As Mark Levin says in the link given, it should not be confined to a Balanced Budget Amendment or others issues that fail to capture the scale of the entire problem. Again as he says, the Founders from the various states did not meet to discuss solely budgetary matters, they met to discuss liberty, who would make decisions and how the decision process would be governed.
No Constitution is perfect and no public is permanently ignorant.
Your view is pinned at extremes that do not exist.
The practical reality is that the public must have means to redress grievances in order that a government maintain stability.
The current reality is that the public is denied a means to redress grievances because Congress is not currently an effective representative body. The 17th Amendment shut down the pathway of States to affect federal representation.
The 17th can stay in place but a balancing amendment is needed. Post #19 above illustrates by example what can be done.
Practically any other President would have gotten the message from the last election, but not Obama. He is such a narcissist election results and promises mean nothing to him, and there is no other branch of government which will do its prescribed job and oppose him.
Bookmark
“I agree that state legislatures should play the role of protecting the people against an overweening federal government. But they simply aren’t going to do it. Most of them haven’t the slightest interest in doing so.”
Agreed. The state legislatures would have to see their interests as different than the interests of the feds. With the pig trough of federal money that flows to the states, much of the state legislator’s time is occupied with getting money from the feds or extracting campaign contributions from lobbyists.
“Unfortunately, senators came to be viewed as redundant representatives of the people”
That’s what their backers, The Body Mortgagors, want them deceptively to be believed as.
The Body Mortgagors spend as much as needed pumping advertising into their big media propaganda Bureaus.
These Bureaus, are all backed by The Body Mortgagors. For those of them not actually registered as Exempt, they are made Exempt by huge media salaries.
Much worse than that is the income tax amendment. That gave the politicians not only the power to take as much of our income as it wants and to buy votes with it in order to stay in power, but it also gave them the right to snoop in all of our financial details. And in creating the IRS, it created a club to scare us in line.
Just imagine how much smaller the federal government would be without the ability to tax us at will.
Thanks for the ping!
History had shown that separation of power was the key, and a senate of the states was crucial. It wasn't until after the structure of the senate was determined in July 1787 that the states agreed to give up their powers in Article I Section 10, and grant the powers of Section 8 to the new government. Their presence in the senate was regarded a sufficient safeguard.
Ratification of the constitution itself was contingent on a senate of the states. It wouldn't have happened if congress was composed of two popularly derived bodies.
Our history, pre and post 17th Amendment bears witness, for the federal government largely stayed within its box before 1913. We wouldn't be staring at tyranny today without the 17th Amendment.
McCain would be taking orders from his legislature. IIRC McCain opposed AZ efforts to secure its southern border.
<>Sorry, I will never quite understand the fixation of many conservatives on the wonderfulness of state legislatures.<>
I’ll never quite understand why so many freepers don’t educate themselves on why several dozen brilliant men in 1787 designed a bicameral congress derived from two distinct sources.
The president in modern times has way too much power. That needs to be addressed.
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.