Posted on 02/04/2005 6:28:36 AM PST by worldclass
4 ged a boudit
It is an Old Wives Tale. Believe it at your peril.
The way things have been going lately, I sometimes think we would be better off without a senate.
A looong read but quite good. Interesting conclusion:
As Walter Lippmann clearly perceived, "The American people came to believe that their Constitution was a democratic instrument, and treated it as such." 31 When it failed to work as expected, it was the Constitution, not the mistaken assumptions, that had to be changed. As exemplified in the election of senators, the cure for the ills of democracy was believed to be more democracy. Parties and administrations have come and gone, but that formula has remained the prescription for American politics down to the present day.
I heard that they just found the original deed of sale and Manhattan still belongs to the indians......
Fine then! Cancel the 17th amendment, I don't care. Women didn't need the right to vote anyways.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
/attempt at humor
"I heard that they just found the original deed of sale and Manhattan still belongs to the indians......"
Sounds good to me. That is several million fewer liberals we have to have around.
yep, the humor tag at the bottom meant it was for entertainment purposes only, not academic deep thought or accuracy. I do that sometimes.
Cool :)
If you track the links on this Devvy Kidd person, you
find she is trying to make financial hay out of the old Vivien Kellems/government issues (VK was the Illegal
Taxation Crusader of her day).
Kidd is a "retired" model looking to make money on
CD's based on the Kellem lawsuit.
I think it was on The Daily Show where they organized a campaign to "End Womens' Suffrage" which got a lot of support from the run-of-the-mill morons who had no idea what the words meant. But, I'm sure they all FELT it was a good cause.
Hey I saw that one! It was actually Jimmy Kimmel. Another example of using humor to get people to wake up and stay alert. You never know when the government will try to pull this one for real.
When people don't have the basic education to know what the freakin' words mean, staying alert isn't the issue I don't think. I know it goes against widespread modern thinking, but I want FEWER people voting because too many stupid people are voting. If someone doesn't have at least a passing understanding of the Constitution - whether they be male or female - they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
As to the direct popular election of Senators, I believe that it has voided the "republican" form of government the Founders intended. The Senate was meant to temper the "democracy" of the House of Representatives, not be looking for their own votes from the electorate.
" If someone doesn't have at least a passing understanding of the Constitution - whether they be male or female - they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Amen to that.
I read that, owing to a combination of bogus and secret amendments, only popularly elected senators who hold titles of nobility are subject to the income tax. It was on Newsmax, and WorldNetDaily and Debka linked to it, so it must be true!
Furthermore, Louisiana ratified the amendment on June 14, 1914.
It depends on the meaning of "is." Or, in this case, "consent" and "state." If 36 (and later 37) states ratified the amendment, that implies that eleven of the 48 states then extant did not ratify it.The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.If you clear your mind of the present-day American notion of states as being perfectly subordinate to the federal government, and think rather of the presumption of the Declaration of Independence thatthese United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent Statesyou see that the intent of the term "State" was not the people of the states but the governments of the states. Before the Seventeenth Amendment the senators were selected by the state governments, and represented the state governments. Under the Seventeenth Amendment, however, the senators are elected by the people of the states and, as such they represent the people of the states and do not represent the States (state governments) at all.So we have the spectacle of the States, and all of them, relinquishing their representation in the Senate entirely. The 37 states which ratified the Seventeenth Amendment clearly consented to this. But, just as clearly, the eleven which did not actually ratify the Seventeenth Amendment submitted to it without a whimper, and conducted direct elections for their senators.. It is, especially at this late date, difficult to claim that any State refused its consent. Certainly not Alaska or Hawaii, which joined the union with the Seventeenth Amendment already long in force.
It is no good to expect the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment, unfortunately, because that is the root of the activist judge syndrome at the federal level. Activist federal judges are far harder on state law than on federal law, because the federal legislature can impeach federal judges. And before the Seventeenth Amendment, the portion of the legislature which wields that power represented the state legislatures.
Failing the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment, I would have the Constitution amended so that the senators were elected as running mates of the governors (and their terms adjusted to suit). That would at least partially restore the representation of the States in the Senate. And would preclude the adoption by the Senate of unfunded mandate legislation, if nothing else.
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.