[Reily]

I’m talking about you! Your views on the Constitution and the Founding Fathers (In spite of trying to steal from Franklin’s fame!) is very very very Wlisonian. I admit Marxist was a inaccurate label! Wilson & his lackeys were deep advocates of mobocracy, which could be Marxist it just depends on what you can stampede the mob to do.

[Dr. Franklin]

I’m talking about you! Your views on the Constitution and the Founding Fathers (In spite of trying to steal from Franklin’s fame!) is very very very Wlisonian. I admit Marxist was a inaccurate label! Wilson & his lackeys were deep advocates of mobocracy, which could be Marxist it just depends on what you can stampede the mob to do.

ad hominem attacks simply reveal the lack of a substantive argument, which in this case is contrary to the historical record:


The historical record is that the Seventeenth Amendment, in its final form, was passed first by the U.S. Senate on 42 to 36 vote on April 12, 1912, and by the House 238 to 39, with 110 not voting on May 13, 1912. William Howard Taft was the president at this time, not Wilson. Three state legislatures ratified the amendment before November 1912, and all candidates for president supported the passage of it, including Republicans Taft and Roosevelt. Thirty-three (33) of the needed thirty-six (36) state legislatures had ratified the amendment before Taft left office. Of the states to consider the amendment, only Utah rejected it:

So your premise that this is "Wilsonian" is false. Wilson had little to do with any of it, as it was a very popular reform occurring mostly under the Republican president Taft. It should be noted that to be ratified required the House accepting the language of the Senate which rejected the following language of House to reduce federal oversight of Senatorial elections: "The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators shall be as prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof." Again, the issue here is federalism vs. states' rights-Anti-federalism.