Posted on 10/20/2014 7:55:00 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
1900s
In early 1912, Arizona and New Mexico were added to the Union as the forty seventh and forty eighth states. A series of unexpected events and mood swings in public opinion resulted in the federal government robbing the states in balance of power by the ratification of the 16th & 17th Amendments the following year in 1913.
The 16th amendment introducing a personal graduated income tax took over three years to be ratified, but the 17th amendment allowing Senators to be elected by popular vote took less than eleven months. By April of 2013, Congress, the President and all but a few dissenting states, dramatically changed the course of the United States.
There have been amendments protecting citizens and others empowering government. These two damaging amendments empowered government to destroy itself and the nation. No amount of debate, political gymnastics or grassroots effort will every amount to anything until these two amendments have been repealed.
Uncle Sam
Picture Uncle Sam’s two legs tied together (by 17th Amendment – states not represented), given a crutch (lobbyists and a growing bureaucracy), a never ending bottle of alcohol (by the 16th Amendment – progressive tax) and supply of drugs (entitlements). Then see how the establishment of the United Nations at the end of World War II has gradually grown in power while Uncle Sam has grown weak. Every president since then has exercised more and more power, but the country has become weaker and weaker.
If you disagree with me, are in favor of the 16th and 17th amendments, please comment below to tell me why. If you share my views, I would love to hear from you, too. Moreover, I would appreciate your ongoing support.
Well said.
Yes it is bad now, and whom can we hold accountable? Ourselves?
If it were to return to the way it was intended WE could hold our local reps accountable in LOCAL elections!
Yeah, it IS bad now! This would force the lobbyists to visit every state and every local rep to buy them off instead of just one office in DC!
bkmrk
I would absolutely support any attempt to get rid of the 16th and 17th amendments. They are the root of much of the widespread destruction of our republic.
bkmrk later read.
Thank you for posting this
The Progressive era was a very destruction force toward individual liberty. The Federal Reserve, League of Nations and equally ugly UN, Great War with WWII, Income Tax, Direct election of Senators, Prohibition and Propaganda are among the Progressive legacy.
The power to tax an individual's work output is very destructive power. For over 125 years our Nation fully funded itself through tariffs upon imported goods that competed with US interests. The 16th empowered social engineering busybodies and opened the class warfare window.
After the 17th, a special interest only needs to purchase 51 Senate, in lieu of 217 House seats, to enable an agenda. Given millions of out of state (and country) dollars purchase elect Senators; rarely does a Senator's values accurately reflect home state's values. For example, Progressives defeated overwhelmingly popular conservative Matt Bevin in the Kentucky GOP primary, leaving Kentucky a toss-up for the lessor of two Progressives evils.
Cheers,
OLA
The difference, my FRiend, is that directly elected senators are beholden to the same people as members of the House - the Gibsmedats - and are forced to pander to the lowest levels of the electorate to win elections. Senators appointed by the state legislatures are less so and can represent the interests of their state without worrying about taking a position that might cost votes among the low information crowd.
The founders recognized that states have different interests than individuals and that unfiltered populism would ruin the nation. The electoral college and indirect election of senators was their way of buffering the mob rule that would be the result of popular elections. Direct election of senators was an early progressive move to tear down the constitutional system, as is the push for direct election of the President.
I submit that the state legislatures are just as establishment as Congress is, and that they would follow what the establishment party leadership wants them to do. Men like Cruz and Lee and McDaniels are so far out of the establishment that they could never be considered. It's only in the primaries where people from the Tea Party have a chance to make a change.
One more change is needed to restore original intent. In 1929, the House of Representatives instituted a rule limiting House membership to 435:
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.”
The House originally had the responsibility of determining how many new seats would be established as the population grew. When they instituted that rule, they abdicated that responsibility, effectively changing the Constitution with a Rule.
That rule must be revoked.
i would agree with the 17th amendment if the state legislatures set and paid the salaries of the representatives... the size of the staff and the housing and healthcare... make the reps accountable some how to the states and the people.
Greetings gspurloc;:
Awesome point, one representative for every thirty thousand citizens could dethrone the likes of Barbara Marvin Martian Lee (D-Mars).
Cheers,
OLA
Until then, the United States was a uniting of states. Each state has its own interests as an aggregation of its residents, with Senators representing the nature of the state as a whole by filtering "the will of the people" thru state government which in turn took two seats in Congress. Senators were selected by high-ranking state leaders who presumably know more about what's actually going on than the malleable rabble at large.
The 17th destroyed that, eliminating the state governments from representation in federal government. Senators are now just winners of the House-like popularity contest, coming from state-wide jurisdictions instead of local precincts.
Nor will the 17th Amendment be repealed. In a democratic age, political legitimacy comes from winning the popular vote, and we live in a democratic age. If senators were still chosen by state legislators, or if they were to be selected that way again, the effect would be a loss of power for the Senate in favor of the popularly elected House (and the White House, the courts, and the bureaucracy).
I don't really buy the argument that state legislators understood or voted for their state's interests more than popular majorities do. If there was something in that idea early on, it ended with the expansion of the national (and global) economy and the growth of parties.
Here's what happened: top politicians aimed for Washington and the second-tier settled into state legislatures. They don't want the headaches of taking on greater responsibility. They don't want to be the ones imposing taxes, and they're more limited in the money they can get through taxation or borrowing, so they let the feds do the heavy lifting.
The process was already underway in the 19th century, but the 16th Amendment sealed the deal: instead of the federal government having to rely on the states for money or having only limited sources of tax revenues, the federal government tapped into the big money and the state governments became dependent on it. Most state legislators are satisfied with that, and those who aren't -- those who really want more power -- aren't necessarily the ones who deserve it.
If you study the 16th and 17th, neither passed. Both are total frauds, but they get what they want anyway.
Yes, but the Feds see it differently.
I met and spent some quality time with Bill Benson. I have a copy of his book. I believe he was right!
However illegal they are, and however dishonest the ratification process was, both must be repealed if there is to be any meaningful reform of our government.
Ray, I certaily appreciate your support for the FairTax, and I do agree with you.
We have a lot of work to do before we gitterdone, though!
As for the 16th, we are stuck just as the opponents of the time knew we would be. It brings the government money, and the government does good things with that money, much better than silly citizens could do spending their own. And we couldn't do without those good things, could we? That sounds facetious in bald terms but framed properly with the a few crucial word redefinitions, that precise argument would be trumpeted from every media throat across the land. "The Tea-baggers are trying to take your Grandma's wheelchair away!" Another no-sale, at least in the environment of the moment.
If I had to choose between them I'd axe the 16th. The federal government seriously needs to be put on a diet or end up like Mr. Creosote and his "wafer-thin mint". And guess who will have to clean up the mess.
Those that have the guns and the corrupt judges make the rules.
Oh we’d absolutely have different people. Remember part of that appointment was they served entirely at the sufferance of the state legislature, one vote they don’t agree with and you’re out, no terms. I’m in AZ where we fairly regularly get into arguments with the fed, if our two senators were actually voices of AZ’s government rather than the people we might actually win some of those arguments.
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.