Posted on 10/20/2014 7:14:24 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
t’s a movement that’s been building in recent years: efforts by states to reclaim their constitutional authority by declaring Washington’s health care laws, gun control or other restrictions simply don’t apply within their boundaries.
After all, the Constitution stipulates that, except for a couple of dozen specific issues such as national defense, the powers in the U.S. rest with the states.
Now a new lawsuit contends states can regain their authority by returning to the practice of having state legislatures elect U.S. senators, as the Constitution originally required.
The case is being brought by author, columnist, commentator and activist Devvy Kidd.
A former congressional candidate, she has been a guest on thousands of talk shows and authored “Why A Bankrupt America” and “Blind Loyalty.”
In her complaint, filed in court in Texas, she contends the 17th Amendment was not legally adopted, because several key states cited in support of it never even voted.
She noted the drafters of the Constitution were concerned about maintaining state sovereignty, which is why state legislatures were given the power to select U.S. senators.
It was like that for more than 100 years until the 17th Amendment was adopted in 1913, establishing direct election of senators by popular vote.
In a recent commentary, she said the 17 Amendment “was critical in destroying the balance of power in the U.S. Congress, wrestling away the sovereign power of the states and any representation in Washington, D.C.”
John Jay, co-author of The Federalist Papers, Kidd pointed out, is quote saying unlike the Senate, where “the two-thirds rule was in force for treaties and impeachment, the lower house had nothing to do with treaties; it represented the people whereas the Senate represented the states – for the Federalists always a significant distinction.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
PING!
Sheesh! Does she really expect the courts to intervene and void the 17th Amendment?
I was JUST talking to some folks about this the other day. Repeal the 17th and watch the country shift red overnight. It’s amazing to me that we allowed this charade to go on as long as it has.
Senators are intended to serve at the pleasure and discretion of the governor of each state. They are state-assigned delegates to act as ambassadors for the states. I never understood why this was considered a good idea. It just doesn’t fit.
The same ploy was used against the income tax.
While I'm 100% on board with repealing 17A, the notion of a court striking down 17A is so constitutionally ill-concieved I can hardly get my head around it.
With all due respect, why do you label the effort “a ploy”?
As she states, the 17th was either ratified legally or it was not. Her trying to
legally ascertain the facts and seek judicial relief for us all, apparently at her own expense, is a commendable effort I think.
>
> If God wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates.
> ~Jay Leno~
>
>
> The problem with political jokes is they get elected.
> ~Henry Cate, VII~
>
>
> We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office
> ~Aesop~
>
>
> If we got one-tenth of what was promised to us in these State of the Union speeches, there wouldn’t be any inducement to go to heaven.
> ~Will Rogers~
>
>
> Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.
> ~Nikita Khrushchev~
>
>
> When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I’m beginning to believe it.
> ~Clarence Darrow~
>
>
> Why pay money to have your family tree traced; go into politics and your opponents will do it for you.
> ~Author unknown~
>
>
> Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel.
> ~John Quinton~
>
>
> Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.
> ~Oscar Ameringer~
>
>
> I offer my opponents a bargain: if they will stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about them.
> ~Adlai Stevenson, campaign speech, 1952~
>
>
> A politician is a fellow who will lay down your life for his country.
> ~ Tex Guinan~
>
>
> I have come to the conclusion that politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.
> ~Charles de Gaulle~
>
>
> Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city, it might be better to change the locks.
> ~Doug Larson~
>
>
> There ought to be one day — just one — when there is open season on Congressmen.
> ~Will Rogers~
>
>
If anyone missed your post, they should go back an read it.
That said, I wish my fellow citizens would use their votes more wisely, but it's still much better than those in power choosing who will join them.
Another problem some of us have...I live in Illinois. Am I going to get to feeling good about having the pack of criminals who run this state picking our senators? We've got an ex-governor sitting in the slammer right now for trying to sell 0's senate seat.
It's not as "slam dunk" for all as it might appear to some.
The framers of the Constitution got this one right, building into the Constitution inherent conflict between the federal government and state governments. The 17th Amendment allows NY and CA billionaires, through campaign finances, to decide who your next senator will be. Prior to the 17th, they would have had to pay off too many state legislators to make it practical to do so.
I could not possibly DISagree with you more. The 17th is THE reason we have lifetime Senators that move to D.C. to live the high life!
Funny, I blame the voters.
That was my point in saying that the suit was ill-conceived. If a court can strike down a part of the constitution itself then there is no constitution. There is only rule by judicial fiat. We are more or less there now but a court making such a ruling would be the final nail in the coffin's lid.
In 2012, Maryland became the 40th state to ratify the 17th amendment.
So far afaik, ten states HAVE NOT ratified the 17th amendment.
The Constitution says no state shall be denied suffrage without their consent...
hmmm...
17th Amendment ping.
Exactly! The Founders did not allow a popular vote for Senators. Just look at N.C. $100,000,000 being spent for a single Senate race?!? You and I can and will wade through all that BS but there is no chance for a average voter to get all the true facts. Your state legislators are not average voters. All we have now is popularity contests with, many times, the winner being the one that spends the most money.
We have a Democrat controlled Senate right now. Just go check who controls the vast majority of state legislatures. Hint: It ain't Democrats! The 17th amendment undermines the concept of a representative Republic. The Federalists would be fuming over the 17th!
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.