Posted on 01/30/2006 6:23:10 AM PST by FerdieMurphy
I couldn't agree more with this article. The states have lost all their power over the federal government and no longer have any say in what goes on. If we would repeal the 17th Amendment it would make the average person more involved in state politics which plays an even bigger role in our day to day lives.
Great article. The states have to hire lobbyists to represent thier interest in Washington just like Big OIL, the Truckers Union and Big Tobacco and have to stand in line with all the other special interest lobbyists.
We have the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) and the National Governors' Association (NGA)among others.
If things went back to the way our founding fathers intended, I bet there would never be another "unfunded mandate".
To begin with, the idea that it was "undemocratic" to select federal Senators by the states elected representatives was false to begin with. What were the states' elected representatives if not "democratically" chosen? Are the rest of their decisions "undemocratic". The argument was alays false. >>>>>>>>>
I would differ with you on that, this country was never supposed to be democratic, that is why the Constitution guarantees a "republican" form of government. Word twisting seems to be the new national pastime but in the day of the founding of this country democracy was understood in its original meaning, all things to be decided by majority vote of the citizenry. True democracy is probably as bad as if not worse than any other form of government imaginable. The worst thing we could do to other nations is to spread actual democracy.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands.
That dubious honor goes to the 14th Amendment.
Courts have said as much on more than one occasion:
---------
"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
(Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383).
______________________________________________________________________
"... a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that `citizen' means `citizen of the United States,' and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State ..."
U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542:
______________________________________________________________________
14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel 20 NC 122:
"... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government."
______________________________________________________________________
U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."
______________________________________________________________________
U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794:
"The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"
Climb out of your cave and spend some time in the library.
It will do wonders to combat your ignorance.
Although Wilson supported the income tax, the amendment was proposed by Congress in 1909 while Taft was president.
(stupid spell-checker...LOL!)
What you didn't see was guys like Jon Corzine, Herb Kohl, and Mark Dayton; guys who had this vast fortune and wanted a Senate seat for personal gratification. In order to become a senator back then, you had to have a track record either in the state legislature or as a civic leader.
Supposedly, the six year term would provide some protection from unpopular decisions. Now the senate is nothing more that another branch of the House of Representatives with richer people.
Let's establish that our fellow New Yorkers haven't been that talented at selecting senators either -- your choice or mine notwithstanding.
We'd almost certainly have some socialist as senator but presumably he'd be vested in retaining power in New York rather than trying to remove that power to Washington.
The theory was that the state legislature would quickly move to boot out a senator who made the state's powers weaker. Repeal the 17th Amendment.
Last time I heard that kind of rhetoric was in "Reds," straight out of the mouth of Jack Reed.
If we went back to the original way, Rhode Island would be sending Pol Pot, Mao or someone even worse to the Senate.
They're dead.
Is the library the place you discovered that deflation would be no problem?
There are people in the RI legislature who would make them seem like pikers if they ever got any power.
You won't find worse people at the Adult Correctional Institute in RI.
bump from a rabid anti-17th amendment person
Amen...Repeal the 17th.
The two are inextricably linked; just look at the Alito hearings. If the senator's were there on the behalf of the states, and not pandering to their constituents, we would not have had the theater of absurdity we watched unfold.
But nothing in the current state of affairs will change. We have come to accept being lectured to and ruled by this self-serving House of Lords.
Two other things happened in 1913 that were just as devistating; The founding of the Federal Reserve System, and the Income Tax.
If you wanted to pick a single point out in our history that would signal the beginning of the end of freedom in this country it is those three acts.
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.