Too complex. The constitution is not a contract (I once had that opinion), a contract requires two parties and consideration. The Federal government did not exist until the ratification of the Constitution and the considerations are intangible.
Rather, the Constitution is a treaty amongst the States — changed with the 17th amendment when the States castrated themselves and federalized the nation.
Repercussions from the 17th amendment include not being able to pass DHS defunding for Executive Amnesty — and executive over reach as serious as any other.
a) The national government did exist before the Constitution of 1789 under the Articles of Confederation (as did the Army, Navy and Marine Corps). The Articles, btw, are articles of perpetual union.
b) The Constitution did not take effect simply as a treaty among the states, as did the Articles. Instead, the states agreed to be bound by the outcome of special elections that chose representatives to a Federal Convention (much like the Electoral College). This gives the national government legitimacy stemming indirectly from the people and not just the state governments. It's a real national government.
c) Agree about the 17th Amendment-- the Senate was originally conceived of as a creature of the state governments. Now we have a collection of corrupt blowhards who are semi-national Federal officials almost impossible to remove from power once elected.
d) The primary issue regarding "gay marriage" is the complete abuse of the notion of substantial due process by the Federal courts, who more and more openly use that concept as a means of ramming their preferred political choices down everyone's throats. The only solution to this problem is either impeachment of the offending judges (including those on the SCOTUS) or (my preferred choice) Constitutional amendments allowing the Congress and the states to nullify court decisions.
Well the Constitution is the Law of the Land (Art VI, Sec 2, Supremacy Clause) whether you see it as a contract or not, with or without the 17th Amendment. The 17th Amendment does not overturn the Supremacy Clause.
The Constitution is the only legal bulwark of freedom against the tyranny of limited federal government power.
If the Constitution doesn’t delegate the power to the feds by a good-faith reading of the text and original understanding and intent of the ratifiers, then it is not a legitimate federal power. Most federal activity these days is unconstitutional.
The Constitution along with America, was handed over to the American People. As oft quoted, Benjamin Franklin coming out of the constitutional convention famously responded to a question, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” with the response, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
This is the very heart of the issue. It is not too complex, but something we must learn, keep, and guard with “our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
FYI, copying you on my reply to Usagi_yo’s reply...
Well the Constitution is the Law of the Land (Art VI, Sec 2, Supremacy Clause) whether you see it as a contract or not, with or without the 17th Amendment. The 17th Amendment does not overturn the Supremacy Clause.
The Constitution is the only legal bulwark of freedom against the tyranny of limited federal government power.
If the Constitution doesn’t delegate the power to the feds by a good-faith reading of the text and original understanding and intent of the ratifiers, then it is not a legitimate federal power. Most federal activity these days is unconstitutional.
The Constitution along with America, was handed over to the American People. As oft quoted, Benjamin Franklin coming out of the constitutional convention famously responded to a question, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” with the response, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
This is the very heart of the issue. It is not too complex, but something we must learn, keep, and guard with “our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”