Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
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 think somebody like Newt (or someone of that caliber) has mentioned this in the last couple of years. Of course it fell on deaf ears.
But the current crop of dems would not allow this to happen - it would cause them even more loss of power (which would be a good thing).
Yes, I understand that now. Consider my mind changed.
So who put these clowns in the RI legislature in the first place? I'm sure they didn't get there by divine fiat. And you, as an individual, have a whole lot more influence on your state legislator than you do on some pol who is elected by the masses of the entire state.
The question is, would you rather have the communist your legislature selected or the communist the electorate selected? At least in the case of the latter, RI's rights as a state would be somewhat more likely to be protected. And if your legislature miraculously made a move to the right, all the pandering to his looter constituency would amount to naught, the state legislature would yank his sorry hide out at the next opportunity.
We should amendment the Constitution to clarify that Fifth Amendment protections extend to the unborn.
... So who put these clowns in the RI legislature in the first place?...
The homos, commies, moochers and illegal aliens withing the 295 belt.Also don't forget the cemetary vote, which is big in RI.
It's like New York. The metro and the fraud outnumbers the rural to the point where nothing we do has value. That's also why anyone with money leaves the state, except for those rich socialists like Alan Finestein, who uses his money to advance the cause of Bolshevism.
...And you, as an individual, have a whole lot more influence on your state legislator than you do on some pol who is elected by the masses of the entire state....
I have no influence at all on any elected official in Rhode Island or the Congressional delegation. I call them and tell them what I think but they basically laugh and hang up.
I don't do any business in the state,anymore, and only own one tiny little house now.
I'd join my money in South Carolina or Florida if my wife would move.
Nope sorry,your wrong. There are 50. Uh,oh wait,there's 51 (I think)...nope,sorry,I'm thinking states...my bad :>)
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
????WTF. I thought there were only 48. When did those other two sneak in?
I understand. That wife thing can be tough. Keep trying, one day you'll convince her to come on down to God's Country.
While I am no fan of the 17th amendment it did not change the government from a republic. It is still a republic. Even the change itself was made according to the constitutional methods.
Anyone believing the legislatures would make better choices needs to watch mine in action. Though it is true that most are probably not as stupid as Illinois'.
BTW the Senate was not to represent the interests of the states but to be the equivalent of the House of Lords and look to the long term interests of the country. It still is the least democratic of the houses of Congress due to the longer period between elections. Our Founders were concerned to moderate the instanteous effects of democracy.
That is the typical degree of accuracy of this paper.
It made no difference and was a sop to the "democrats" among us. How would a selection by political machines make any positive difference? Recall that at the time of the writing of the Constitution political parties not only did not exist but were considered anathema to the Founders.
Then Jefferson went and created the anti-Hamilton party that we know as Democrat.
And Illinois.
BS. Modern capitalism would not exist without a central banking authority. And it was NOT the creation of a conspiracy of Jews.
You hit the nail on the head. Crackpot University- the alma mater of many here.
It is difficult to find info on the net relating to the supposed ratification of the 17th amendment.
Some say it was never properly ratified.
The states NEVER had any power over the federal government. Their power was restricted by the Constitution to the concerns, laws and regulations of a state and even then ONLY when no other states were affected or citizens rights were not infringed.
They'd represent a different constituency, per se. They'd represent your state's interest, not yours. You'd elect representatives to your state legislature partly based on who he or she'd appoint to the Senate.
Our Founders considered the word "democracy" to be a negative. They intended that we have a Representative government and only a small minority of the population was allowed to vote. In the southern states this meant less than 5% of the people.
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.