Posted on 04/12/2015 7:21:25 AM PDT by cotton1706
Really? The Federal Government has not drawn power to itself without regard for what is written in the Constitution?
Odd. I see no signs anyone in the government has ever heard of the 9th and 10th Amendments...
The 1787 draft constitution ratified by the states included their participation in the government. Ninth and tenth amendment security was built in.
The why were the 9th and 10th added, and why has no one paid attention to them in many, many years?
17A
I assume you mean by that the 17th Amendment caused the government to explode. It did not.
You REALLY ought to examine the history of the growth of government and the centralization of power. The consolidation of power in DC did not start in 1913.
Nor were the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution held in high regard or honored prior to 1913. You cannot learn from history if you do not know it.
Madison and other federalists contended that consolidation of power in the new government was impossible as long as the states were still represented in congress as they had been under the Articles. As opposed to anti-federalists, the federalists believed our rights were not best secured with a bill of rights, but rather by division of power. If power was sufficiently divided, no single person or group could possibly oppress us and our God given rights would be secure. Madison so distrusted bills of rights that he called them “mere parchment barriers.”
I learned in high school civics that separation of powers doctrine meant distinct functions between the exec/legislative/judicial departments in Washington, DC. That is a true but an inadequate description, because THE FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT DIVISION OF POWER WAS BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE NEW GOVERNMENT. When the states booted themselves from the senate, consolidation of power in DC became a fact.
In its wake, the 17th left behind a federal constitution without a federal government. It set up an internal contradiction in our republic in which the government acts on an entity that doesn't have representation in the law making body. It makes as much sense to boot the people from congress as it does to boot the states . . . no sense at all.
With one amendment, the liberty saving design of our framers was destroyed. The 17th vindicated both Madison and the anti-federalists.
Is there any question today's government is consolidated? All three branches write laws, and there is nothing we can do when the judiciary and executive branches effectively write the law. Our revolution centered on the fact that no law can be legitimate unless the people's representatives consent. We no longer consent to the laws we live under. The law is what Obama or Scotus say it is.
With repeal of the 17th, power in DC would be more than halved. Power would be split once again between one federal government and many state governments. No longer would the senate serve as Obama’s rubber stamp bitch. No longer would anti-10th amendment lawyers have a chance of sitting on a federal bench. No longer would the EPA abuse the people and states with outrageous regulations. No longer would the DOJ abuse the electoral process. The list goes on.
Make no mistake. The 17th was no minor tweak. The framers recoiled at creating a popularly derived congress, for they knew very well what popularly derived legislative assemblies were capable of. The progressives of a hundred years ago knew exactly what they were doing with the 17th. We still hear it today, when they tout the wonders of “democracy.” BS, democracy kills, and our popularly derived senate is killing our republic.
Thank you for the information and yur thoughtful insights.
I, too, initially was not thrilled with the IDEA of a Convention of states because I thought it was too similar to a Con-con- to which I am very opposed.
However, Levin points out that the Convention of States is a Constitutional remedy put forth by the founders fur just such a situation as the one in which we find ourselves. It is birthed and controlled by the states legislatures whereas the Con-con is controlled by Congress.
I would encourage you to pick up a copy of Levin’s book on the subject, The Liberty Amendments. In it, he discusses the entire process as well as the amendments he would suggest—and he does include stipulations that may address some of your concerns.
IMHO, though there is risk, at this point, it may be worth pursuing because we seem to be losing our rights anyway.
Regards :)
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.