Posted on 08/28/2022 11:01:14 AM PDT by ScaniaBoy
There have been many details exposed over the last two years about how our government at all levels is not what we thought it was, and none of what we're hearing bodes well for this republic.
Let's focus on one issue: the U.S. Senate. It's clearer than it has ever been that it's just a collection of elected officials, behaving as if they're independent actors with no restraint. It's as if they have no allegiance to anyone. The citizens of their respective states matter not, except once every six years, when they play the "how can I fool them again" game. They're a law unto themselves. Oh, and the welfare of their respective states? They couldn't care less.
How did this come about? The 17th Amendment.
Nineteen thirteen was a terrible year for our republic. It delivered a double–constitutional body blow: first, imposing a federal income tax — the 16th Amendment — and then the general election of U.S. senators — the 17th Amendment.
Prior to the 17th Amendment, state legislatures appointed senators. Each state had its own process for this. The senators were the gating mechanism against a House of Representatives that had a penchant toward foolishness. Given the fruitcakes we see there today, it's clear the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
It is not simply who picked them that changed how senators behave today. The larger aspect is that power corrupts and far too much power has gravitated from states and individuals to the central government.
The Founders created branches, levels, super majorities, etc to somewhat protect Freedom from this power gravity.
In their vision it would not matter so much who states send to the US Senate. Because they really should not be doing much of what they do today.
Local state legislators don't need to win back their power over US Senate choices. They need to rise up and demand their power back from the central govt in general. You don't need amendments to get rid of FBI, Dept of Ed, etc.
"Let's focus on one issue: the U.S. Senate. It's clearer than it has ever been that it's just a collection of elected officials, behaving as if they're independent actors with no restraint. It's as if they have no allegiance to anyone. ..."
Evidenced by the alleged stealing of the 2020 elections by desperate, elite Democrats and RINOs, federal and state governments have been pirated by organized crime front-ending itself with very corrupt, constitutionally undefined political parties imo.
Regarding Senate, I hope patriots understand that one of the very few peacetime reasons that you'd want to contact a member of congress is if you were having problems with the U.S. Mail Service, the mail service arguably one of the very few main powers that the states have actually expressly constitutional given the feds to dictate federal domestic policy.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;"
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"From the accepted doctrine that the Unite d States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In other words, most "federal" domestic policy is actually based on stolen state powers, and likewise stolen state revenues uniquely associated with those powers imo.
More specifically, post-17th Amendment (17A) ratification federal lawmakers are continuously stealing from the states by means of constitutionally indefensible appropriations bills imo.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had left the care of the people uniquely to the states, not the federal government.
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
Probably most constitutionally "asleep at the wheel" patriots need to ask themselves, "How many unconstitutional “Brooklyn Bridges” (Social Security, Obamacare, etc.) have I bought from my state's crook federal senators as a consequence of abusing my 17A powers?"
In fact, and respectfully to FReepers, consider that patriots hypothetically could have replaced ALL federal senators TWICE since Obama 2010 midterm elections if patriots had a clue about federal government's constitutionally limited powers.
The bottom line is that the states desperately need to get rid of the unconstitutional middleman, the unconstitutionally big federal government, from “helping” the states to manage their revenues.
More specifically, Trump's red tsunami of patriot supporters need to start supporting Trump-endorsed state lawmaking candidates ASAP to do the following.
Trump-endorsed candidates need to stop unconstitutional federal taxes and unconstitutional interference in the affairs of the sovereign states by leading ALL the states to effectively "secede" from the unconstitutionally big federal government by repealing the 16th (16A; direct taxes) and 17th (popular vote for federal senators) Amendments.
Once 16&17A are gone, unconstitutional federal taxes permanently stopped, each state will ultimately find a tsunami of new revenues (imo) that can be used to increase teacher salaries, also salaries of police and fire departments for starters.
Let's also include new state funding for infrastructure maintenance in that list. Undoubtedly many other state social spending programs as well to replace former unconstitutional federal spending programs.
Additionally, no more forced compliance with Democratic politically correct and unconstitutional federal gender-related civil rights protections in order for school kids to eat likewise unconstitutional federal lunches paid for with stolen state revenues for example.
In fact, Justice Louis Brandeis had seemingly reflected on Bingham's words (above) when Brandeis volunteered his "laboratories of democracy" metaphor to emphasize the unique power of the states to serve the people, ultimately depending on the kind of state social spending programs that the legal majority citizen voters of a given state want.
"[...] a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." —Justice Louis Brandeis, Laboratories of Democracy.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Three things happened that year, not two. The third was the creation of the Federal Reserve
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act
The whole reason it is a 6-year term is due to the fact that they’re supposed to be elected by the state legislature not by the public.
The 16th and 17th were the progressive’s first victories.
As for the 17th, it was sold as the means to make the senate more congruent with the House. It worked. Much to our detriment.
Before the 17th, the Senate’s farm team were the state legislators. Today, aspiring congressmen are often the state’s next senators and carry their habits and outlook with them.
Our Framers would freak out at the thought of six-year elected terms.
The only reason congressmen have two-year terms was due to the awful roads/means of travel in the 18th century.
There is simply no way to know what might have been if the 17th Amendment had not been passed.
The idea that the Senators would not be beholden to anyone is false, because they would still be beholden to those who appointed them and would be representing their special interests.
I see no way out of the mess of senators owing someone and working on that basis.
Article V (related) ping!
Uh, okay.
How about this: The Articles of Confederation acted on the states. The states sent delegates to Congress. Perfect sense.
The Constitution acts on both the people and the states. Both had representation in Congress. Perfect sense.
In fact, a draft Constitution without state representation would have been a dead letter at the state ratifying conventions.
What is the logic of two popularly elected lawmaking houses? None.
For that matter, a republican constitution of government that acts on entities not represented at the law-making table has a name: Tyrannical.
<>There is simply no way to know what might have been if the 17th Amendment had not been passed.<>
But we know what has happened since passage.
Foremost, the 17A is responsible for Scotus justices hostile to the 10th Amendment.
Agree!
And every state legislator thinks themselves a future senator! That in itself should be enough to make term limits for senators unnecessary. I stiil prefer a two terms and out for at least a term, term limitation if not permanent.
Percentage of Senators with >16 Year’s Tenure:
1819 – 1821: 1%
1915- 1917: 5%
1995-1996: 14%
2017-2019: 20%
Sending “better” men and women to a popularly derived senate cannot possibly correct its inherent deficiencies. The Framers got it right. If we are to arrest and reverse our occasionally slow, yet often rapid slide into despotism, we must restore the Framers’ keystone to free government. All good things are possible with, and impossible without, repeal of the 17th Amendment.
Thanks for putting that together!
I was looking for those statistics.
So 100% agree!
It is much easier to correct issues at the state level though, even if what you say is true. Just the cost of a US senate campaign is more than the cost of a presidential ( or equivalent position) campaign in many countries. The amount of money needed makes bribery almost inevitable.
I suspect you'll appreciate this:
What is your proposed fix? I agree with what’s needed, but how to get there? State nullification?
I have never understood how the states could do this to themselves.
It’s going to either be them or the House. We should’ve implemented a Constitutional Amendment that required not only a Balanced Budget, but an explicit and irrevocable cap on the tax rate. Limitless spending and limitless government and taxation begat limitless tyranny.
As I remember some of my history on that, a number of states for various state political reasons were very slow in replacing retring or deceased senators. There were constant claims that somehow this would reduce the railroads and other monopolies influence (bribes) in state legislatures. Seems to me all it did was reduce the number of points to “influence (bribe)” from many - the legislature to two - the number of Senators in the post-17th amendment system.
There may have been other reasons but those are two I remember.
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.