Posted on 02/22/2009 7:11:41 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
A simple apology would have sufficed. Instead, Sen. Russ Feingold has decided to follow his McCain-Feingold evisceration of the First Amendment with Feingold-McCain, more vandalism against the Constitution.
The Wisconsin Democrat, who is steeped in his state's progressive tradition, says, as would-be amenders of the Constitution often do, that he is reluctant to tamper with the document but tamper he must because the threat to the public weal is immense: Some governors have recently behaved badly in appointing people to fill U.S. Senate vacancies. Feingold's solution, of which John McCain is a co-sponsor, is to amend the 17th Amendment. It would be better to repeal it.
The Framers established election of senators by state legislators, under which system the nation got the Great Triumvirate (Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John Calhoun) and thrived. In 1913, progressives, believing that more, and more direct, democracy is always wonderful, got the 17th Amendment ratified. It stipulates popular election of senators, under which system Wisconsin has elected, among others, Joe McCarthy, as well as Feingold.
The 17th Amendment says that when Senate vacancies occur, "the executive authority" of the affected state "shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."
Feingold's amendment says:
"No person shall be a Senator from a State unless such person has been elected by the people thereof. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“There is a reason the history of the 17th Amendment isn’t covered in publik skools.”
Of course not. If the public was actually informed and educated about it, the 17th would be repealed. But then again, in our day and age, they probably wouldn’t give a rat’s rump.
“Why would I allow an incompetent corrupt government to choose my Senator...no way.”
The founding fathers knew that the government that you had the most control over was your state government. People’s daily lives were revolving around the state level. Today the states have been relegated to second class because of the direct election of senators.
The repeal of the 17th Amendment would make sure that more people paid attention to their “corrupt” state government, like they should be doing.
I would much rather have a bunch of thrashing, ineffective parochial boobs than the coolly efficient criminal enterprise, functioning under cover of law, that we have now.
Which is why we had all be very careful about what is in this bill.. they will slide a reversal of term limits right by the states if they think they can get away with it and with Obama taking the Census into the WH we could very will end up like Venezuela.. I always said — leading up to the election — that it was dangerous not to vote for McCain... no matter how much we all disliked the man... because with Obama we become Venezuela.
I live in a Dem state...Ohio-Voinivich is retiring. We may be able to elect a Repub...if we let the state handle it, We’d get a Dem for sure...no thanks. This would not make us more free-less I fear.
I didn’t say it would be easy. It will take lots of work to turn state governments around but it would be well worth the effort.
The states need a voice in the federal government like our founders intended. That way the states wouldn’t be railroaded into accepting federal mandates. The states would be there to keep a balance on things.
As I said, it’s not easy but freedom isn’t free, as is often stated. Too many people, Republicans included, have given up on paying attention to their state governments and have concentrated on the federal level. There is the problem.
My state, Missouri, was long a democratic stronghold. Now, we have a Republican house and senate in this state and have had for quite a few years now. It took a long time and lots of hard work but it was worth it. If the 17th had been repealed, my state wouldn’t have McCaskill as a senator. And we wouldn’t be known as a state that elected a dead guy to the Senate a few years back.
I don’t think this will ever happen. I see your point, but there was plenty of corruption in the old system from the (admittedly) little I know about it.
As to the other matters, we are still developing our policies. Our platform does not as yet address them in detail.
We wanted to lay down the non-negotiables first:
PrefaceAmerica's Independent Party has as its goal the return of our nation to a set of foundational principles. We call them "America's Principles." The word "principle" comes from a Latin root that means "first things." America's Principles are the "first things" that our country should consider in all of our domestic and foreign policies.
America's Independent Party recognizes that these "first things" are clearly defined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
However, we also believe that there is room for debate over prudential policy matters within certain parameters of fundamental American political thought and a framework of ordered liberty. We seek a return to an approach to government that facilitates that respectful and necessary debate, but that never compromises the moral premises that made this country great.
We are working to pull together the best minds in America to not just complain about the current mess, but to develop a workable, practical alternative.
From the long debates and discussions that have already taken place so far, several things have reached what amount to a consensus:
1. The Federal Reserve has to go, and must be replaced with a system in which power is dispersed, one that is controlled by the citizenry at the local level. If the banks are failing, let them fail. The dinosaurs need to die. They're a defunct model. The new model should be one that mirrors the structure of the internet. Loosely linked. Dispersed power. Controlled by the users.
2. All real economics starts at the household and village level. The very word economics has this concept at the root of its very meaning.
3. All real wealth comes from the productivity of the land and the sea, from what we can mine from the ground, from the processes of turning those resources into useful products, and from those who provide useful services.
If I wasn't so tired I could lay out a few more of the fundamental assumptions that have arisen from our discussions as we develop our policy papers and national issues affiliates that deal in these important areas. The latest affiliate being developed along these line, by the way, is called "AIP Real Economics." I have high hopes for it.
Frankly, we have not had many discussions of the gold standard as yet. I'd be happy to hear your opinions in this matter. But, I'm certainly no fan of fractional reserve banking. It's a system predicated on debt...lending money into existence. One of the problems with that is that they lend the principal into existence, but not the interest that must be paid. This creates one certain outcome: someone is ultimately going to go broke. It's an inevitablity.
Anyhow, if I got anything wrong here, I apologize. Like I said, I'm wiped out tired. It was a stretch to find the mental energy just to type this.
In closing, I'm willing to listen. If you have ideas about how AIP can have the strongest, most sensible, most effective economic positions possible, we'd love your input.
We have several national conference calls per week that last several hours each with folks from all over the country. These matters, among many others, are topics for discussion. Join us some time.
The 17th Amendment says that when Senate vacancies occur, “the executive authority” of the affected state “shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.”
How bout we just REPEAL it..
You’re thinking Short term, in the long run you’d end up with a much more conservative senate (meaning they’d want a difused governemtn where more power in the hands of the states, than the federal central government). It’s much easier to controll your state capital than Capital Hill!
You may have a point, but I don’t think it will ever happen...don’t 2/3 of the states have to ratify a change in the constitution?
There were some problems back in the day. The reason why the 17th Amendment was brought about was because some states had split houses and the senators were not being sent on time.
So instead of letting the states run their course like they were supposed to, the federal government decided to meddle and brought forth the amendment. Surprisingly the states GAVE away their leverage and power and ratified this monstrosity. Now we are paying for their “expedience” and “convenience”.
I want back the way the founders set us up...as a Republic where the states had their power. Can you just imagine the government we would have today? A state powered senate that was looking out for itself? A senate that could have blocked the myriad of laws that infringe on state’s rights?
If we had that today, these state resolutions concerning the 10th Amendment would not be necessary. The 10th would have teeth because the senators would be voting for their states, not for themselves.
That’s the problem with me. You’re a normal human being, and I’m a night owl. Hope you feel better tomorrow.
I support a return to a gold standard, but there are a few problems to be addressed in getting back to one.
1. Gold is currently around 1000 (fiat) dollars an ounce. We need to figure out what to do in order to deflate back to $35/oz. or $20.67/oz. or whatever Congress finds suitable without destroying our national economy.
2. We need to insure a steady domestic supply of gold, perhaps by ensuring that all gold mines are owned by U.S. companies, something that usually isn’t necessary in a given economic sector, IMO.
3. We have to prepare for shocks to the market somehow. For example, the IMF apparently holds about 3/4 of the world’s gold. Suppose they decide to dump gold onto the world market, thus effectively devaluing our currency?
Sleep tight.
That’s what I would do.
3/4 of states are needed to ratify. And don’t think that it’s necessarily impossible. Right now, about half of our states have resolutions in some stage of development in their legislatures asserting their state sovereignty under the 9th and 10th Amendments. It would be difficult not to see the efficacy of repealing the 17th Amendment to achieve this goal of asserting their sovereignty.
As I understand it, the trigger leading to ratification was, admittedly, a Senate candidate from Illinois allegedly bribing a number of IL legislators to assure his appointment in 1912. However, you still need to balance the chances of that happening against returning to the states a potent mechanism by which they could reign in this runaway government.
Correct. The Senate was designed torepresent the states, by which the Constitution meant the legislatures of the states, since according to the republican ideology of the time, legislatures were the dominant over executive and judiciary. In most states, that remains the case. In Texas, for instance, the lieutenant government—the presiding officer of the Senate—has more real power than the governor.
“However, you still need to balance the chances of that happening against returning to the states a potent mechanism by which they could reign in this runaway government.”
That’s the part we need back. Unfortunately it will take a lot of work as we can see how many states are drooling over the stimulus money. It will take a great amount of grassroots work to regain control of the state governments and put them back into Conservative hands. Then the 17th can go away and we can regain control of the wayward child that is our federal government.
I long for the day when the 17th is repealed and the states take back what they freaking gave away 96 years ago. I sometimes wonder what was so “progressive” about them back then.
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.