Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Neals Nuze ^ | August 3, 2010 | Neal Boortz

Posted on 08/03/2010 6:25:01 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

There's an excellent Peggy Noonan column pointing out that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, not necessarily the Tea Party, is the model for conservative Republicans ought to follow. The entire column is really worth a read ... but this one paragraph stood out:

"Thus the new DNC scare ad, which features the usual "Jaws"-like monster music, and then the charge that the Tea Party and the GOP are "one and the same." Not only that, they're cooking up a plan to "get rid of" or privatize Social Security and Medicare, repeal the 17th Amendment, and abolish the departments of energy and education and the EPA."

Well, this is pretty much standard for Democrats in campaign mode. In every single election since 1952 Democrats have tried to frighten the catheters right out of our wizened citizens by telling them that the evil Republicans were going to take away their Social Security. For 58 years they've been pushing this guano, and after 58 years Social Security is still there.

The interesting bit here is now the Democrats are warning their constituents that the filthy Republicans want to repeal the 17th Amendment. Now THERE, my friends, is a fantastic idea.

Some of you will remember that I devoted a chapter in my last book, "Somebody's Gotta Say It" to repealing the 17th Amendment. Then Democrat Senator Zell Miller (he was once my boss, by the way) thought it was a good idea and actually introduced a resolution for a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the 17th before leaving the Senate. Interesting, isn't it? A Democrat calls for repeal and it becomes a Republican thing.

So ... what's the big deal? Just what does the 17th Amendment actually do? It makes the 50 State governments pretty much powerless in Washington, that's what. Under our Constitution --- our original Constitution --- the House of Representatives was supposed to represent the interests of the people in
Washington, and the Senate was supposed to represent the interests of state governments. The members of the House were elected by a vote of the people that the House members represented. Similarly, the members of the Senate were chosen by the States the Senate represented. The legislatures of the various states would appoint the Senators.

This all changed with the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913 allowing for the popular election of Senators. The 17th Amendment moved us closer to the form of government called "democracy" that our founding fathers abhorred. Some of you who have been reading the Nuze for a while know that during the time of the founding of our Republic it was considered slanderous to refer to someone as a democrat. It was considered to be an insult. The word "democrat" was an epithet. (Much as it is becoming today).

Here's something for you to chew on. New Mexico, like Arizona, is having a problem with the Mexican invasion. The problem is certainly more severe in Arizona, but New Mexico is facing difficulties as well. Now ... consider the fact that after the 17th Amendment became law the State of New Mexico no longer had an official representative in Washington DC. Yeah ... think about that. The country of Mexico has an official representative in DC ... the STATE of Mexico does not. Remember ... now both the Senators and Representatives represent the people. The state governments have no official representation. Foreign countries have ambassadors ... our own states have nothing.

Can you imagine how our own battle with illegal immigration might be different if the Senators still represented state governments? Illegals cost state governments tens of billions of dollars. The children of illegals have to be educated and their emergency medical needs must be tended to. Then there is the crime costs associated with illegals. Here are just a few estimates of the cost of illegal immigration to some individual states:

And then there's Arizona ... the cost there is over $1.3 billion a year. Arizona tries to do something to solve the problem. It's clear that the federal government will do nothing to control illegal immigration so long as The Community Organizer is in office ... so the Arizona legislature steps up. As soon as Arizona passes its law many other states reveal plans to do the same. The Obama steps up and orders the Justice Department to file a lawsuit against Arizona ... to sue Arizona for its attempt to enforce laws that the federal government refuses to support. How might this have all been different if Arizona, New Mexico and all of the other states considering passing laws to stem the invasion of illegals had official representation in Washington in the person of two Senators each? Obama needs the Senate to get his leftist, anti-individualist agenda passed. Is he going to tell the states to pound sand when it comes to immigration law? Hardly.

Then there's the issue of unfunded mandates. Medicaid would be the prime example here. There can't be a state in our nation that isn't wrestling with the federally-mandated costs of dealing with Medicaid. How do you think this situation might change if senators representing the states, and not the Medicaid beneficiaries, had a voice in policy?

So .. the Democrats want to use a Republican threat of repealing the 17th Amendment to frighten voters? This, if it is in fact true, should be seen as a positive ... not a negative. It's time to strengthen state governments at the expense of federal power.

Repeal the 17th? Let's do it!

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Mexico; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Arizona; US: New Mexico
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; 17thamendment; arizona; congress; democrats; gop; house; illegalaliens; lawsuit; medicaid; mexico; newmexico; obama; repeal; senate; states; teaparty; unfundedmandates
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last

1 posted on 08/03/2010 6:25:02 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I am very much for repealing the 17th, but let it not be forget that the previous system was deemed so corrupt that the 17th looked like the answer.

Wrong answer.

2 posted on 08/03/2010 6:29:09 PM PDT by sionnsar (IranAzadi|5yst3m 0wn3d-it's N0t Y0ur5:SONY|TV--it's NOT news you can trust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

An interesting concept.

3 posted on 08/03/2010 6:29:54 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (If November does not turn out well, then beware of December.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
cooking up a plan to "get rid of" or privatize Social Security and Medicare, repeal the 17th Amendment, and abolish the departments of energy and education and the EPA."

Sounds like a good start. Let's Roll!!!!

4 posted on 08/03/2010 6:35:05 PM PDT by rawcatslyentist (Jeremiah 50:31 Behold, I am against you, O you most proud, said the Lord God of hosts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The legislatures of the various states would appoint the Senators.

It's often said these days that that would be an improvement, but as corrupt and partisan are many state legislatures are, I'm not so sure things would be any better than a direct vote of the people.

The fact that each state has two senators regardless of population still does give extra weight and representation to the states in the Senate. I just don't see any vast improvement to be realized by returning the selection of senators to the politicians in state legislatures.

5 posted on 08/03/2010 6:43:02 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

No problem. It never passed.

6 posted on 08/03/2010 6:48:48 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Will88

I would think the states would never have allowed the central government to become this gigantic. It is too bad that the SC does not give a whit about the Constitution. Madison saw the 17th coming and tried to prevent it. But, since the court can’t read we lost the Republic.

7 posted on 08/03/2010 6:54:40 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Will88

I think it would make a difference. There was a reason that the progressives in power at that time wanted the 17th passed. How many unfunded mandates were shoved down on states before the 17th? At least if the state legislatures appointed the Senators they would vote in the interests of their states or be replaced, unlike today where people like McCain push issues like amnesty directly against their state’s best interests.

8 posted on 08/03/2010 7:04:33 PM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

NO DUMMIES, it is abolish the EDU,EPA and INTERIOR.

9 posted on 08/03/2010 7:06:19 PM PDT by Marty62 (marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat

There is currently more evidence that the Original 13th Amendment passed without question than there is that the 16th or 17th were ratified properly by a single state let alone the necessary 3/4. And it was removed while America Slept, lasted almost 50 years and needs to be revived. Consequently, We would have a much different America if we started following the Constitution by teaching it to everybody for what it says, not a bunch of lawyers in drag.

I say repeal Both, Never gonna get Congress to propose their own demise, but the country is ripe for maybe a Convention for a very specific purpose: repeal 16 and 17, reinstate the Original 13th. and maybe Add 1 forbidding the borrowing of money or of issuing credit.

10 posted on 08/03/2010 7:09:16 PM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat

I’m still not hearing anyone make the case that the politicians in state legislatures would select better senators for their states than the people.

We see what sort of factors come into play when governors are able to appoint a senator, even on a temporary basis. We see how Charlie Crist and Blagojevich handled it. The majorities in state legislatures would likely pick the old politician who held the most IOUs.

The primary way the constitution gave the states specific representation was by giving every state two senators, regardless of population. That is still the same, and that weighting is also in the electoral college.

11 posted on 08/03/2010 7:10:44 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

There is zero evidence that the 17th passed. Madison required a 100% vote for any change in state sufferage in the Senate. He knew the 17th (or something like it) would emasculate the states. We now have a dis-functional democracy with seats in the Senate bought with advertising. These guys have no interest in preserving State authorities.

12 posted on 08/03/2010 7:13:46 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Will88

The 17th(fraudulently passed) destroyed the Republic.

13 posted on 08/03/2010 7:15:57 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20
I think it would make a difference.

And it might not make the difference you expect. There are two Republican senators from Alabama: Sessions and Shelby. Are you aware that the Dims have a majority in the Alabama legislature? Would you prefer two more senators in the mold of Lincoln and Pryor, or Webb or Landrieu in the Senate rather than Sessions and Shelby?

I don't know state-by-state, but there are other southern legislatures still controlled by Dims that send Republicans to the Senate.

As bought and paid for as many state and federal legislators are, and as huge as the influence of lobbyists and money is now in the states as well as in DC, I think we are significantly better off selecting US senators by a vote of the people than by a vote of corrupt state legislators who are so influenced by lobbyists and interests groups.

14 posted on 08/03/2010 7:21:57 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

One thing that might help, would be to ban ALL political (campaign) contributions from outside of the state (for Senators) or the district (for Representatives).

15 posted on 08/03/2010 7:22:27 PM PDT by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat
The 17th(fraudulently passed) destroyed the Republic

Another sweeping statement with no narrative and evidence to support it.

16 posted on 08/03/2010 7:23:12 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat

I believe there are enough States currently pissed off at the Federal Government for one reason or another to actually Call for a Convention, they just need a little guidance by a handful of strong Governors whose legislatures back them, such as Arizona,Montana,Oklahoma... Wether or not the necessary 38 can be had is another problem. Congress nor the Administration nor the Courts can do a Damn Thing about it. That is the only way it will be done if at all.

17 posted on 08/03/2010 7:31:28 PM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: reg45

Why? We helped get Scott Brown elected; the Senators from other states vote for garbage that affects ALL OF US, like Obamacare.

18 posted on 08/03/2010 7:32:52 PM PDT by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Will88

What evidence? The states were kicked to the curb with the 17th. Senate seats are bought (with ad money). The mob votes for everything, there is no State interest in the Senate. This should be obvious. Without State representation in Senate, you have no Republic.

19 posted on 08/03/2010 7:32:52 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist
Vis a Vis Social Security here's a little history lesson:

History Lesson Your Social Security Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!

Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated that the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message was removed.[9]

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,

No longer Voluntary

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,

Now 7.65% on the first $90,000

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

No longer tax deductible

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program,

Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent

Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following:

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---- Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democrat controlled House and Senate.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -- Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democrat Party.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----- Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democrat Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democrat Party.


Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democrat Party gave these payments to them, even though the immigrants never paid a dime into the system!

------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- --------- Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

If enough people see this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, since some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so. Actions speak louder than bumper stickers. AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!

20 posted on 08/03/2010 7:40:16 PM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the the cannolis. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson