Skip to comments.The 17th Amendment and Mark Levin
Posted on 04/13/2013 9:42:21 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Mark is working on another book. Every night it seems, he wants to bust out and talk about it, but his publishers have put the ixnay on too much disclosure. Still, he shows a little leg now and then. That happened in the second hour of his show last Thursday, April 11, 2013.
With the help of sixteen rinos, Dingy Harry got 68 votes to proceed with a gun control bill that few, if any Senators had read. After wailing on the lack of process and regular order, Mark focused on the nature of the Senate and how it differed from the institution of our Framers.
The Federal governments powers were supposed to be limited. Defined. Enumerated. The Federal government wasnt supposed to have all of this power. It wasnt supposed to have plenary power; the plenary power was with the States. (Relates how in times past one could easily have a face to face with State legislators from your home town) Some States are great, some suck. But thats not the point. The point is that the federal government is worse than any State; is it not? Thats what happens when power is concentrated. Thats what happens when limits are thrown off. So, were fighting battles we shouldnt have to fight, and theyre coming one after another after another. Theyre bipartisan. I want you to keep something in mind, this is very important, IMHO. (wails on the 16 rinos who threw in with the rats over gun control/2A.)
I want to ask you this question, whats the purpose of the US Senate? Im serious. Originally, the US Senate was supposed to be made up of members who were sent there, to this body, from the State legislatures. See, the States that gave birth to the federal government, they WANTED A SAY in what the federal government did. So they said, okay, well have a popularly elected House of Representatives elected every two years; there was a lot of debate over the term, but they settled on two years, and then they said, Were going to have this Senate. And one of the main reason s were going to have this Senate is, well of course the main reason is WE THE STATES need a say in this, some position in this government we are creating. But they also said, look, the Senate will slow down, ya know what might become a fad, or a movement, a temporary sort of mob activity, because well give them longer terms, and because Senators wont be elected directly by the same people who elect House members, but theyll be elected indirectly by the same people, through their State legislatures.
Instead what we have here really is a body that has no point. Theres no point to it. Do these Senators really represent their States? I mean this guy Wicker and his vote today, does he really represent Mississippi? These two jerks from Georgia, do they really represent GA? No, they got on a boat, with Manchin, who really doesnt represent West Virginia, and Mark what do you mean, he doesnt really represent, I mean the people elected him . . . No, I didnt say he didnt represent the people of GA or MS, I said the States of MS or GA, because right now they have no say in anything. So whats the point of the US Senate, will somebody please tell me? I dont know exactly. Well, I know what the Constitutional powers are, THATS NOT THE POINT. My point is why have two bodies if theyre both popularly elected? No matter how you change the terms, they dont represent the States, or they represent a district, yiptido!"
"I dont think there is a more useless body than the US Senate, in terms of its structure today. And how did it happen? In 1913, that the 17th Amendment was ratified, giving direct elections to Senators. Well, its the same way things happen today. Radical populists, and so-called Progressives, whom I call Statists, . . . because in the end thats all they are, big government types, they pushed this movement, . . . both the 16th and 17th Amendments in the same year. (more on amendments in general) This movement has undermined our system, as it does today. This is why there is a disconnect, theres an absolute disconnect, so if youre a Senator you can change from day to day who it is you think you represent or claim to represent. (rant on who or what do Senators represent, the people, states . . . ) IOW you do whatever the hell you want in the name of the people, the Constitution . . . and so forth . . . and youre really doing it TO the people and UNDERMINING the Constitution. Its an ugly, bizarre institution right now."
"Thats what Im saying. We understand the House of Representatives. We may not like what it does but we understand what it is supposed to do, dont we? Its peculiar, this Senate. Im going to talk of this down the road. . . . because I think whats necessary here, well . . . Ill talk more about it down the road, because in many ways I think were banging our heads against the wall."
If it were up to me I would retain the right to vote for senators but give the win to whoever wins the most districts.
I’m at the point now where words or books have no substantive meaning in this battle between the evil we have come to confirm is Democrat and the last vestiges of freedom minded Americans. Words and books won’t cut it in this battle.
It wasn't a real good slathering, and mistakes were made where the Supreme Court ended up as its own judge.
The very same Founders did something very suspicious when they wrote up the rules for the Indiana Territory ~ the state Senate was turned into the chief court ~ boom boom ~ boom boom ~ boom boom ~ tympanic noise resounds in the hall.
Same guys; a dramatically different idea for a Senate. BTW, the Indiana legislature was still handling divorces in acts of the legislature in the late 1800s! That was after the reform of taking it out of the hands of the Senate alone.
The other territories and states that were laid out to rule the Old Northwest as it was carved up into states did pretty much the same thing ~ use the senate as a court ~
I think if we needed anything to give us a proper perspective on the Senate, it would be as a court with jurisdiction on all cases at law arising out of federal law. That would include any possible conflicts with state laws created by federal law.
He’s right. There’s a reason the Democrats worked so hard to retain control of the Senate. There are only about 33 races every two years there. They mass their resources and win. And when a Democrat wins a Senate race, he/she is there for six years advancing the Democrat party. Their leadership is smarter than the Republican leadership. And since the Democrats control the judicial branch, the legislative branch is moot anyway as the Democrats will challenge every Republican backed law in court and win the vast majority of the cases.
Those who have knowledge will understand this ~ we need a GRAND CANAL ~ impeachment just doesn’t work to discipline the federal judiciary.
Our form of government is unique and reflects what the States were doing at the time, more than the Brit system.
The Federal Senate was modeled on the existing Maryland Senate and retained State representation, in modified form from the Articles of Confederation.
Congress has plenty of power over courts. It doesn’t use them because the ruling class generally likes the results.
It was the Earl Warren SCOTUS that wrecked that representative communications track with Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr, two rulings for which they neither had the Constitutional authority, nor were consistent with its construction for State representation. By forcing the States to have direct elections of their State Senators, they were violating the exact principle under which the US Senate was ordained. The result was exactly the same as the 17th Amendment, placing rural areas at the mercy of the ignorant whims of urban voters and the media that herd them.
I can't see why guys like Mark Levin haven't made this simple and effective point.
So, it was the Maryland senate that was the model for the federal Senate. The NW Territorial Senate was clearly modeled on someone's idea of a high court and not the Maryland Senate ~ most likely because the Old Northwest was made up mostly of former Virginia land claims.
I think it's safe to say there were conflicting currents of thought ~ which is probably why the Federalists found it so easy to snake their Supreme Court into a position of equality ~ and even superiority.
We probably ought to undo that.
There is no way this would have happened if States had agency in the Senate.
I'll bet Mark eventually gets around to it.
You are absolutely correct. Words, books and talk show rants are not going to stop this MarxoFascist tyranny from subjugating us.
We are way past any peaceful political solution at this point. History more than teaches where we have arrived.
But because we are infected with Normacly Bias - the American people do not think the horrors of genocide and subjugation of the last century by similar Leftist Utopianists as what we have in power in this country now, can happen to them.
The brush moves both ways, Demo & Repub, when painting a picture about the attack on constitutional freedom. Go back to the late part of the 19th Century and the first decade of the 20th Century and see that Republicans were right there in the thick of Progressivism. Think Teddy Roosevelt here...
This is at the center of how we arrive at the 17th Amendment.
To restore the 10th Amendment, repeal the 17th.
We do not have the power or ability to keep our own representatives from defacto abolishing the Second Amendment, or throwing in with the homosexual agenda. They are compromised and even the TEA Party is infiltrated.
We cannot get Congress to stand up for the Bill of Rights - how can anyone expect them to repeal the very Amendment that gives them limitless power??
What makes anyone think that a Con-Con would not also be twisted and perverted into a complete scrapping of the entire Constitution itself??
No my friend, if we take a hard look at history and human nature - you will find that there is no peaceful or political solution to where we now find ourselves in the effort of stopping what the Ruling Class is doing to us.
If liberty is precious, then war to preserve what is left of it is going to be the only solution. It has come to that. As soon as the vestige of liberty is removed, life itself becomes the target of those working to subjugate us.
Since the Ruling Class do not fear a Godly, moral people beholden to their faith and our Foundational documents - there is no bulwark against what they intend to do to us.
The only way to get them to stop - is to put fear of our resolve into them. Not even sure that will suffice at this point.
The fact is, most in this nation no longer share or have in common the very foundations that forged us in the first place.
Since we would not fight when the cost would have been bloodless, we are arrived at a point where we will have to fight a futile attempt to preserve our own lives, or live as slaves.
Tell me what war will accomplish.
Although I would support the repeal of 17A just to help reconnect patriots with the Constitution and its history, 17A is not the problem with the unconstitutionally big federal government imo. The problem is that constitutionally ignorant voters don't understand that most of the spending programs that candidates promise to get themselves elected as federal lawmakers are based on constitutionally nonexistent federal powers.
In fact, what you're not going to hear from Obama guard dog Fx News is the following. Practically the only federal program that Congress has the power to regulate, tax and spend for within state borders is the postal service as evidenced by the Constitution's Clause 7 of Section 8 of Article I. In other words, federal government has no power to tax and spend for most other government services within state borders.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Are you kidding me?
It TOOK WAR to establish our liberty from tyrants.
It will TAKE WAR to preserve what is left of our liberty from tyrants.
Or was Jefferson wrong when he discussed the absolute need of watering the Tree of Liberty?
If we’re not willing to do what it takes to keep what is left of essential liberty, then slavery and death is our near-term future, and a meager existence will be labeled ‘freedom’ - for the privilege to live as the State dictates.
The 17th fundamentally altered the structure of our government. The division of power between the federal government and states was destroyed. Without the institutional means to secure their interests, to enforce the 10th, to keep the feds to enumerated powers, it was only a matter of time before James Madison's prediction was fulfilled; we have a consolidate government of plenary powers. The 17th is the reason we have runaway government.
Save your snark. Just answer my question.
Your ping makes it sound sweet, when if fact like me you think it is a deadly amendment, along with its evil twin the 16th, aimed at the heart of the republic.
An excellent point. I will do that.
While I agree the 17th gelded the Senate and States Powers, there is nothing in the above that is remarkable or noteworthy other than the off hand comment about Senators actually reading it.
The rules of the Senate are on cloture are 100% senate rules with no constitutional issues at all. They own it, they encumber themselves with it.
I already answered it.
You missed it apparently.
Again, I respectfully disagree that 17A is the problem. 17A did not delegate any new powers to Congress.
What 17A indicated, imo, is that parents weren't making sure that their children were being taught the Constitution and its history in the nation's schools, particularly the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers, such powers evidenced by the Constitution's Section 8 of Article I, Article V and the 10th Amendment.
As a consequence of decades of indifference to the Constitution, Constitution-ignorant voters have been tricked by OWG factions to abuse their voting power by electing corrupt federal lawmakers who blatantly ignore the federal governmet's constitutonally limited powers.
Whatever you do, don’t read what Mark had to say.
What does separation of powers mean to you?
I meant no snark in my previous post.
More importantly, what they don't understand is that the money being spent belonged to the states. Now it is taken at the federal level via the 16th amendment and spent there or doled back to the states with strings attached.
What if the states never gave that money to the federal government, and instead spent it locally via state legislative authorization? Roads and bridges would get fixed. Jobs would grow locally. It would vary by state based on each state's needs.
Instead, the federal government taxes the money away from state use and then gives it to Egypt and Syria, spends it on failed alternative energy programs, or pays illegal aliens to reside here with food stamps.
Return control of the Senate back to the states, and then give the states a say in how much money is taken from them and how it is spent.
Read 10th Amendment.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Again, given that the states have never amended the Constitution to delegate to Congress the specific powers to establish most federal taxing and spending programs established since FDR's New Deal programs, also including abortion, euthanasia, banking, environmental protection, agriculture, healthcare, etc., the Founding States made the 10th Amendment to clarify that government powers to regulate such things are automatically reserved uniquely to the states.
Justice John Marshall had further officially clarified that Congress's is prohibited from laying taxes in the name of such issues, essentially any issue which Congress cannot justify under its Section 8, Article I-limited powers.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
What the 17th did was make the national party bloc more important than the state.
With the need to now run for a seat instead of lobby the legislature for it, the need for campaign funding was strong. With 33 elections to fund every two years, there were synergies gained from forming national party campaign committees to coordinate party fundraising and disseminating funds. If a Senator wanted to benefit from this, he had to align with the party bloc's wishes, not the state's wishes.
Eliminate the elections and make the Senators have to lobby their legislatures again.
State participation is essential.
Here is a short post:
Jacquerie post #18: "Tell me what war will accomplish."
INVAR post #20: "It TOOK WAR to establish our liberty from tyrants.
It will TAKE WAR to preserve what is left of our liberty from tyrants."
Any talk of war today is as foolish as it was when Fire Eaters proposed secession and war in 1860 -- as their answer to protecting their most valued "peculiar institution".
It didn't work then -- instead accomplished the just the opposite.
It won't work now.
A different, lawful peaceful, course must be found.
When we are standing in in the pouring rain waiting for our daily bowl of fish eye soup in the FedGov Socialization and Reeducation Camp No. 23, will that be a good time to discuss “other than peaceful” means?
Good luck with that. There is no example in all written human history of such a thing happening.
Or - to quote John Adams - “Liberty lost, is lost forever”.
War will be the last freedom this people have in determining their fate, either at the hands of a genocidal state - or because they resisted the genocidal state.
Such is history.
One we were warned would happen to us by both scripture and the Founders.
Cows may not vote, but their owners are sure sick of not having their vote mean squat in state legislatures in the USSA!!!
Earl Warren most certainly should have been impeached and re-assigned to cleaning out gutters in rural dairy barns for the rest of his unnatural life!!!
We are no closer to your vision today than Slave Power was in 1860, when lunatics took over their asylum, started and declared war on the United States.
Then and only then were they and their "peculiar institution" utterly doomed.
Article 3, section 3:
You said it: "futile"
INVAR post #37: "War will be the last freedom this people have in determining their fate, either at the hands of a genocidal state - or because they resisted the genocidal state. Such is history."
See my response to central_va in post #39 above.
So what do you mean, "this people"?
What "people"? Your people? Who are your people, Kemosabe?
Some special race, religion, ethnicity, culture or, what is it, political beliefs?
Whatever you imagine your people are, I can promise you they are not the majority of anything, and will not chose civil war so long as they can still vote the b*st*ards out of office.
So, I'd say you obviously know nothing of war, especially most civil wars.
To suggest such things is simply insane, and seriously, you may neeed counseling for that.
No sane person advocates civil war to change a still-democratic political body.
So I'm telling you: go get help.
Don't be a danger to yourself and others around you.
Be sure to inform your pals at DHS of your diagnosis of my mental state so they can come confiscate my firearms.
As Mark Levin regularly reminds us, reform will not emerge from Washington. If we are to peacefully save what remains of our freedoms and regain what was lost, it is time for the States to call an Article V Constitutional Convention. If Congress does not head it off on its own to consider a single amendment, repeal of the 17th, we have little to lose. Our consolidated government ignores our unalienable rights, separation of powers and is arming itself to put down mass confrontation. If Congress ignores the threat and the States convene a convention, we risk no more than where we are already headed, a consolidated government of unlimited powers bent on creating a perfect social justice Utopian hell.
We have the means to save our society and lives; means that were not available in 1775. Lets use them. Together, with the help of God, we just might save these United States.
It's a win-win for the MarxoFascists - if we do not take the bait, they erect the machinations of tyranny that will be impervious to dismantlement, if we resist - we become enemies of the state, terrorists the Ruling Class will say is justified for extermination.
Your suggestion is a noble idea, and if this people were a moral and upright people as generations before us were, such an effort would have a good chance of success.
We are no longer a moral or upright people, especially among those ruling us and those beholden to them.
A con-con will be hijacked by agents of the Ruling Class, and what you intended would become a weapon against us all and the entire Constitution itself 'legally' rewritten to suit the MarxoFascists.
This regime and the Ruling Class in power are no longer bound by the Rule of Law, the Constitution or the Will of the People. They have repeatedly defied us, ridiculed us and did what they intended to do despite protests. We're dealing with evil and corruption on a scale I do not think you comprehend.
If they will not respect the rule of law as written NOW, what makes you think they are going to abide the repeal of the 17th?? You think for one second that this regime, the entire political ruling class and their dependents are just going to surrender their usurped power without engendering a bloody fight?
No my friend, history teaches that such men in power have no fear of law when they have manipulated it to their advantage. Nor do they have fear of any new law that upholds the rights of the people. That too will be ignored, marginalized or demonized to ineffectiveness. The only safeguard against such power of ambition is the fear of force being used against them, and the will to execute such force.
Aside from all that - why should God help us preserve what is left of the Republic when we sat on our hands while the Secular Hedonists threw Him out of our culture? Why should God help a nation that practices infanticide and murdered an entire generation of Americans in the womb because our current definition of liberty is to do whatever we feel like doing? Why should God help a nation that is granting homosexuality an elevated status in society?
I'm not trying to be defeatist here - but realistic. Of course we should make attempts to 'appeal' to our rulers, same as our Founders did. But there comes a time when reality must be accepted and a futile course of appeasement and petition of those who are unfit to rule a free people, requires the means and will to resist them by the only thing tyrants respect.
If what you desire as a course of action were to have any viability whatsoever, begin first by getting this people to do a II Chronicles 7:14. Shy of that - I'm afraid John Adams' statement about liberty being lost forever, will prove not only to be prophetic, but an indictment of our failure.
"But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it
" - John Adams
Criminals have no rights to "keep and bear arms".
Be careful you do not cross that boundary, or urge others to.
So there is only one viable option here, and that is to persuade, persuade your fellow citizens of the righteousness of your cause.
Failing that, you might want to think about some other country, presumably freer than ours, to call your home, FRiend.
You being the arbiter of what is criminal and mentally unstable.
You know, it’s a funny thing - but our Founders were criminals, rebels and terrorists in the eyes of the lawful, legal authority of the Crown and in the eyes of those who supported the tyranny of the Crown.
Nothing new under the sun, even for such a time as this.
Possibly you've heard of "the law" and "the Constitution"?
Those are rules we live under, and if you violate them, you are subject to prescribed punishments, including loss of certain rights, i.e., to "keep and bear arms."
INVAR: "You know, its a funny thing - but our Founders were criminals, rebels and terrorists in the eyes of the lawful, legal authority of the Crown and in the eyes of those who supported the tyranny of the Crown."
A small point, but the word "terrorist" in its modern meaning did not exist in those days.
Indeed the first "terror" came during the French Revolution, more that 10 years after our Revolution of 1776.
So our Founders were never considered "terrorists".
Certainly, rebels, insurrectionists and revolutionaries engaged in treason, about which Benjamin Franklin famously said:
So, after years of patient attempts at negotiations, when our Founders finally sat down to write up their Declaration of Independence, they had a long grievance list, with dozens of particulars, including ones such as this:
And this one from Jefferson (later deleted):
And that's what's meant by a "right of revolution" -- in the face of major provocations and crimes against humanity, and lacking lawful recourse to a representative legislature or courts of justice.
Those are not the conditions today, and are unlikely to ever become such.
So what, exactly do you wish to revolt against?
The fact that our fellow citizens keep voting for more "free stuff" and government control than is healthy, or constitutional?
Of course, that cause is worthy, but any resort to violence will not produce a good result, FRiend.
Try explaining that to Obama and Congress. You obviously haven't been paying attention of late.
A small point, but the word "terrorist" in its modern meaning did not exist in those days.
Semantics. You know what I meant.
And that's what's meant by a "right of revolution" -- in the face of major provocations and crimes against humanity, and lacking lawful recourse to a representative legislature or courts of justice. Those are not the conditions today, and are unlikely to ever become such.
America will last forever, Obama's a really nice guy, Government is not trampling our inalienable rights and what's going on is just politics as usual. You haven't a freaking clue what time it is pal. You have an incurable case of Normalcy Bias
but any resort to violence will not produce a good result
Some things are with dying for. I guess for you - the promise of safety and security is enough to placate.
Enjoy your slavery, good luck attempting to reason with the MarxoFascists for what is left of your liberty and may posterity forget you were ever our countrymen.
If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. - Winston Churchill
We're soon to arrive at the latter portion of Churchill's statement, but not so for you. Your end will be to perish AS a slave.
I thought that state Senators were elected prior to those decisions, only the district boundaries were fixed (counties), so that these jurisdictions were not subjected to redistricting and gerrymandering. No matter how the political winds blew, the Senator from Fairfax County, VA, for example, would always represent the people of Fairfax County, VA, no matter how populous the county was.
Reynolds vs. Sims screwed that political stability over.
You are correct. I was illustrating a proposal of my own. Sorry if I conflated the two.
Reynolds vs. Sims screwed that political stability over.
Yup, but I do wish State Senates worked off the principle of appointment by county boards of supervisors. County governments need representation at the State level just as States do at the Federal level.
So, I take it INVAR was appointed criminal prosecutor, judge, jury and executor of justice against the administration?
And this happened when, exactly, and by whom?
Funny, I don't remember ever voting for INVAR.
INVAR referring to his inappropriate use of the word "terrorist": "Semantics. You know what I meant."
Politics is all about "semantics" -- precise definitions and uses of words to distinguish right from wrong, fact from fiction, acceptable from not, etc.
So it's important to understand that in no sense of the word -- traditional or modern -- were our Founders "terrorists".
Yes, treasonous rebels against the Crown, for sure, but they were in the best sense of the word: Gentlemen, not "terrorists".
INVAR: "You haven't a freaking clue what time it is pal.
You have an incurable case of Normalcy Bias."
I know that some people would like to convince us it's again October of 1860 -- or even November 10, 1860 and if you know your history, you know why that date is important.
But November 10, 1860 was not the date Abraham Lincoln launched his invasion of the Confederacy, it was the date slave-holding secessionist Fire Eaters launched their assault on the United States.
It ended badly for them.
I'm merely here to warn you: don't repeat their mistakes.
INVAR: "Some things are with dying for.
I guess for you - the promise of safety and security is enough to placate."
Some of my ancestors served in every major US war, beginning with the Revolutionary War.
I volunteered and served years in the United States military during a time of war.
And you have done what, exactly?
INVAR: "We're soon to arrive at the latter portion of Churchill's statement, but not so for you.
Your end will be to perish AS a slave."
Now you're just blathering nonsense.
When I served, we stood ready to be called up for defense of military installations -- against violent attacks by the same crowd that now runs Washington, DC.
My, how times change.
They will change again, FRiend, lawfully, constitutionally, peacefully.