Posted on 01/30/2006 6:23:10 AM PST by FerdieMurphy
When is the last time you read, or even glanced through, the U.S. Constitution and its 26 Amendments? Me neither. I’ve had so many other important things to do I haven’t taken time to even think about what happened to the most significant document in American history that made possible our land of freedom and independence.
What happened was that a bombshell, dropped on us in 1913, was more devastating to America than the market crash of ‘29. Why? Because, unlike the crash which lasted only through the 30’s, this bombshell will directly affect our lives, and the viability of the nation, for as long as we have a nation. The bombshell was the 17th Amendment we made to the U.S. Constitution.
Before 1913, the Congress of the United States was functioning in the way our Founders had intended it to function. That is, Senators were elected by their State legislatures, and were representatives of the states, which made up the republic.
Here’s how that arrangement was phrased in the Constitution: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six years, and each Senator shall have one vote.”
Oh, but wait a minute, yelled the liberal crowd of that day. They charged that the Senate was “undemocratic” (exactly what our Founders intended it to be) and the Senators should therefore be directly elected; that is, by the people. So, thanks to a demo-campaign of “re-education and misinformation” the 17th Amendment was passed.
Now it reads like this: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years, and each Senator shall have one vote.”
With the simple changing of five words, the U.S. Senators no longer represented the interests of the State, but of their constituents, exactly like our Representatives do -- or are supposed to do.
And America immediately went from a Republic to a Democracy, just that quick.
Having the same constituency, with no substantive difference between the House and the Senate, both bodies began focusing on the short-range politics of confiscation and redistribution, and of preferential treatment of selected individuals and groups.
Moreover, under the 17th Amendment, the States are now treated as second-class citizens; literally inferior institutions subject to more and more Federal control.
What’s been the result? Political and social chaos; the one thing our Founders took such pains to help us avoid.
Moreover, this one simple change has put America on the road to socialism. If you think not, how else would you define giving more and more power to the government so it can confiscate and redistribute the nation’s wealth?
For that reason alone, tinkering with the original concept of the U.S. Constitution is not only dangerous but ultimately destructive.
The 17th Amendment should be repealed, and we should return this nation to the Republican vision of our Founding Fathers. Because if the “creators” of this nation didn’t know what was the best, fairest, and most effective form of government, who does? Apparently not us.
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.