I'm speaking of the Seventeenth Amendment. The Seventeenth Amendment silenced the voices that defended State Constitutions. The Seventeenth Amendment sliced State Sovereignty right out of the Upper Chamber. Today, the Upper and Lower Chambers are beset by near identical lobbying and campaign forces. Aside from the length of term and civil service tenor, what distinguishes the two chambers? What exists to prevent the two chamber of the U.S. Congress from trampling State Rights or State Constitutions? Who in D.C. is accountable to State Law Makers?
The founders understood something that we have forgotten. The corruption of man has no end. Therefore, we must separate powers to the fullest extent possible. The separation of the Executive from the Judicial from the Legislative is not enough. Can you not see this? The power of the masses has to be separate from the power of the States!! General lobbying influences of special interests, unions, corporation, cities, etc.. have destroyed the system. The voices of State Legislators and the State Constitutions are no longer represented and defended in the Federal City!!
It's time to get loud. It's time to tell Washington that the State Legislators have their voice in the U.S. Senate. The power and accountability of State Representation in the Senate must be returned!! It is time to Repeal 17!!
Texas House members Creighton, Hughes, Berman, Gattis and Guillen have filed HCR-50 declaring the Sovereignty of the State of Texas in light of the Tenth Amendment. Their effort is worthy of your support. Tea Parties are flaring up all across the land. These symbolic acts are also worthy of your support. But what has teeth? What will take a bite out of the corruption in the Federal City? What can really bring change to D.C.? What will restore the balance of power in the land?
Repeal 17!! Repeal 17!!
God Save the U.S.A.
Posts
2 comments:
Brent:
I hadn’t heard about this movement and was thankful for you for sending me this information and links.
After reading the arguments for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, I have a few questions:
Isn’t there an equal amount of “special interests” and nefarious lobbying going on at the state levels (most especially in TX!)—which influences who sits (and who doesn’t) at the state level? My only concern is that if such a movement succeeded, the ugliest side of such influence pedaling would simply shift from Washington to the state capitals.
Would removing the ability of the people to elect their senators be a step back from democracy and toward more entralized “government power,” even partisan power?
Seems to me this is motivated purely in response, indeed in knee-jerk reaction to a specific politician (B. Obama) and the putative “movement” he seems to represent—which is far less radical and far more centrist than many suggest.
Party majorities come and go, both at the state and national levels no?
Can the movers behind this petition be so sure that state lege’s will continue to be republican controlled forever? And those state-level majorities come and go as well. Wouldn’t it cut both ways?
Perhaps I’m not reading widely enough, or perhaps not deeply enough, but my sense is that most state legislators support receiving federal stimulus revenues (even “bailouts”) to either pay down their own state-level debts or stave off their own mounting budgetary disasters.
Much of the response against obama’s ‘radical agenda’ seems to be populist, or “of the people,’ who are seemingly being whipped into series after series of breathless frenzies by a hyperbolic media—using words like “socialist,” “communist,” and now “fascist” (and I recently heard “post-American”—as though he is not even American). I fear the consequences of such hyperbole.
As always, my friend, I’m interested in exchanging ideas/thoughts/ and questions, versus ad hominem critiques or barbs.
Like you, I’m trying desperately to make sense of our world and the flawed human character that occupies it….so that I might help others understand it as well.
Best/u prof
Repeal 17 was around before Obama emerged. Zell Miller and Ron Paul put forth Senate Joint Resolution-35 on the issue in 2004. I believe it was Wyoming that tackled the issue even prior to 2004.
Certainly, there are special interest lobbyists at the state level. The point is that when the U.S. Senate is more accountable to the States, the interest of the masses (U.S. House) have to be reconciled with existing state laws. As it stands, both the House and the Senate have similar influences and can easily align on something that ignores the Laws of any given state.
The U.S. in not a pure democracy. We are a representative republic. There is just as much danger in putting too much power in the masses, as there is in the putting too much power in a small group. The division of power helps maintain principles. The founding patriots made it very clear that pure democracy was not good. So, no I don't Repeal 17 as a step backwards. The 17th amendment was a step in the wrong direction. When the Constitution was written, there where 13 State Constitutions already in play that had to be respected. We started out as an American Union of 13 Independent Nation States.
Repeal 17 would impact Democrats & Republicans alike. I view Republicans as favoring Corporate Welfare, while Democrats favor Social Welfare. I desire to stop both of them from acting in such ways that take away from State Sovereignty, and again, this movement sarted well before Obama came on the scene.
I do believe Obama's positions and the Secular Humanist agenda in general are Socialist in nature. I do not believe those policies withstand the test of time. The Economic Justice agenda is very alarming to me. The Republicans' corporate welfare is socialist in nature as well. I do not support either.
States do also change in their political philosophy. Generally, Texas is among the most Conversative, and yet we see our state drifting left also. I think State Sovereignty is essential to maintaining long term competition between the states. One of the reasons we have lost our manaufacturing prowess, is because we do not have good competetion between the states. When the Fed tells everybody how to do things, other world markets can more easily gain an upper hand over all of the U.S.
Great questions, and I too appreciate the dialog. Keep it coming, and thanks for handling the discussion without offense.
Post a Comment