Posted on 08/25/2010 7:07:09 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I know that if we are to “cheat fate” we will need to learn from their failures and successes and uses modern technology to give us the advantage they never had.
Although I would caution against relying on technology too heavily without having less technologically dependent back ups. for example, I don't think it'd be that hard to crash the internet...I don't mean by a single individual, but by a government or a rogue portion of it...or more simply, just legislating it such that it's no longer free (there are already efforts on that front).
Well if we can convince everyone that the 14th amendment was never properly radiated then the 19th amendment becomes the new “The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States” as spoken of in the currently numbered Twenty-first Amendment(would become the 20th).
Thus ending the Federal constitutional requirement that women be given the right to vote. This wouldn’t solve the issue of State Constitutional enfranchisement but it would give us a laboratory in which to make the case in practice.
Kill 2 birds with 1 stone I say.
Of course we will still have to deal with the new 17th amendment and we will have to keep at least 13 states from ratifying either a new Womens vote amendment or a new 14th amendment.
“Although I would caution against relying on technology too heavily without having less technologically dependent back ups. for example, I don’t think it’d be that hard to crash the internet...I don’t mean by a single individual, but by a government or a rogue portion of it...or more simply, just legislating it such that it’s no longer free (there are already efforts on that front).”
Actually it would be quite difficult particularity for the indefinite period that would be necessary.
Instead the greater and more likely problem will be an intelligence adversary that takes our commutations and uses them in conjunction with their other powers of government to obstruct our efforts from gaining any serous voice in power.
This however can’t be helped and we will have to figure out a battle plan that takes into account their full knowledge of what we are up to. (Believe it or not that can be an assent in terms of enabling us to control our opposition.)
The real question is how much knowledge and concern they have of us and our efforts. there is also a question of just how many of them may be convened to join our side.(This is big the more we can annex the better our cause).
>>”Because congressional seats represent regional interest and senate seats represent geographic interests.”
regional interest = geographic interests
Unless of course your referring to Geography as rocks, if that be the case the senate does an exceedingly poor job of equally representing the different rock types in the Untied States.
>> “I understand the “reasons” given for repealing the 17th, and it only makes sense if you’re in ALSO favor of repealing the 11th amendment as well so you can “go back to the original system the founders established” for electing the executive branch of government. In such a scenario, John McCain would become Obama’s veep. “
I think your confusing amendments. The 11th amendment says:
“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The 11th Amendment has nothing to do with the executive branch.
Of course the Federal courts have sense applied the 14th amendment to in part “repeal” the 11th amendment, along with a lot of other protections from the Federal Government.
But I think it’s funny that you would mention the 11th amendment as its probably the one amendment after the “Bill of Rights” that is the most unlike the 17th amendment.
PS: You really should read the story behind its passage as its something we can learn form and repeat today given the right circumstances.
Basically its a testament to State resistants to Federal injustice system intrusion.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised. When I was in the military I was in a section that no longer exists, but now is part of Military Intelligence, and part of my training included some intelligence analysis and reporting. It's amazing what information you can gather when people assume their communications are private.
Bingo!!!
The “Show Me State” proves itself once again!!!
Excellent point, very well stated!!!
From what I've been able to find about the 17th amendment, Blago's antics are exactly the reason it was proposed and ratified in the first place.
Well, not his antics, specifically. But, the process of "electing" Senators was rife with corruption.
I’m all for repealing the 16th also. I think the founders were very wise to write the constitution not allowing a direct tax on income. Look at what a cluster of corruption and tyranny that has become. I think repealing the 16th would fix more problems than just about anything else that could be done. I am good with repealing the 17th also, but it is not as big a problem as the 16th is from my point of view.
In fact they do and it's because they are socialist swine. It's a fantasy to think rat state legislators are against federal government power. They most certainly are not. Many rats in Congress got their start in the statehouses. I don't know why some many freepers have this fantasy, it's absurd on it's face.
BTW, number of tea party Senators that would be elected by state legislatures? Probably ZERO.
Who cares who the State’s select over the long run in all other respects.
What is important is that the States will be disinclined to elect folk that vote to rob them of their power to govern the state independent of Washington D.C.’s dictates, unlike the people whom MOST of the time simply want issues addressed nevermore who addresses them. Much to the destruction of our Federal Constitutional system of competing state powers.
No they won’t! Rat and RINO legislators don’t mind federal statism one bitty bit. Nor to do they mind statism at the state or local level which just as bad. State politicians are not different from federal politicians. Narrowing the electorate for the Senate to a handful career politicians guarantees WORSE Senators.
While you should not have faith in the honesty of a politician you should have at least a little faith in their greed for power.
It does not serve a State politicians greed for power to want Federal politicians robing them of that power.
Remember everything the Federal Government doesn’t have in terms of power the State has by default, therefore every encroachment upon the rights of the states or the people by the Federal government is a direct threat to the power of State politicians.
You don’t have to trust state politicians to defend you out of some civic duty to our Constitution, they will do so out of their own desire to have control over the State rather then letting Washington usurp that control from them.
They aren’t robbing them of any power, they are still to free to persue statism on the state level on top of federal statism.
I have 4 levels of statist government over me.
The problem is socialists not popularly elected Senators. I want them all gone. It doesn’t matter to me if the crappy leftist policy is being enforced by the federal or state government. It’s screws me either way.
Several rat Senators are recent gubernatorial appointees. Every single one voted for Obama care and their rat Governors are glad they did. They are FOR it. Democrats in state legislatures are FOR it. Poll them and you’d see. Most rat pols are for it no matter what level of government they “serve” at.
Of course this comes from another pointy headed intellectual douchebag. I bet if he understood the Constitution he would know why the 17th needs to go!
One time another anti-17th amendment freeper insisted that amnesty for illegals would never be considered if Senators were selected by state governments. Let's examine this one... Senators who currently got their job via appointment from state governments are: Bob Menendez, Michael Bennet, Ted Kaufman, Roland Burris, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Lisa Murkowski. Wow. What a great team fighting for state sovereignty. No doubt they'll form the Senate No Amnesty caucus any day now. Bob Menendez can chair it. ;-)
And speaking of Lisa Murkowski, any bets on whether she would have been retained if the RINO-infested Alaska state legislators got to make the decision? I believe Joe Miller got the endorsement of around 4 or 5 Republican state legislators, the rest were in the tank for Murkowski. Oh well. Politicians know better than the rest us, right?
And when it comes to state governments, it's interesting how those who are the loudest voices against the AZ law have no idea what's in the bill. Likewise, those who most passionately argue that state legislatures should pick our Senators seem to have no idea what kind of people make up the 50 state legislatures around our nation. Perhaps those who advocate for this bill should be required to spend a few days observing their local state legislature "in action" and see what kind of people they'd be handing over the reigns of power to. I've seen my state legislature in session. Have they?
On a final note, perhaps the most telling thing is RAT politicians will always publicly claim to oppose letting state legislatures choose the Senator, but their actions tell another story. During the 2004 U.S. Senate debate between Keyes and Obama, this topic actually came up -- with Keyes arguing the IL state government should pick our Senator for that seat and Obama arguing passionately against it. Keyes picked the question, it seemed like an odd topic since the situation was unlikely to ever come up in real life. But ironically, four years later that scenario came up. Blago was arrested for trying to sell Obama's senate seat. Proposals were made immediately to strip the Governor of having the power to choose the Senator, and let the people of Illinois decide via a special election instead. The state legislature refused to act on this and take power away from the government and give to the people. Since Obama had argued so passionately four years earlier that he didn't want his colleagues in Illinois government to make that choice, you'd think he'd use the bully pulpit and use his weight to press for a special election so the people can decide. But no, Obama left it up to his pals in the state legislature. And the result is Blago gave us Roland Burris.
So thanks to Barack, Alan Keyes got his way all along. We now have a Senator selected by Illinois state government in that seat.
“They aren’t robbing them of any power, they are still to free to persue statism on the state level on top of federal statism.”
Only within the far more limited and often infeseable confines of Washington’s limitations. Washington has been reducing our states largely to administrative divisions.
The one thing about those that desire control which we can uses against them in the end is the fact that they can’t all be in charge. Inevitably they will come to feud with themselves in how that power is welded, at least until one of them asserts crushing tyrannical power over all of them and the rest of us.
Those of us that wish to be free of the state have no where near as much serous grounds on which to fight as we generally wish to NOT be in each other’s business.
“I have 4 levels of statist government over me.”
One word: Move.
“Move”
Thanks for that helpful advice, genius.
I maintain most state officials less they are conservatives are in favor of federal power. Your assumptions are incorrect.
Not true if you live in my state. State officials routinely (and blantantly) violate established federal laws and suffer no reprecussions for it. For example, the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits states from engaging in trade relations with other nations unless they get consent from Congress. That didn't stop our last Governor from embarking on his own taxpayer-funded trip to Cuba to meet with Fidel Castro and hammer out an "Illinois-Cuba compact" for farming goods in 2001. I don't recall him EVER getting permission from Congress to do that. Federal law explictly makes it illegal to live in the U.S. without a visa. Yet many cities in my state have enacted "sancutary cities" allowing illegal aliens to thumb their nose at federal laws and remain there indefinitely (your state probably has local governments that do this as well!) Federal law gurantees that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, via the 2nd amendment. Chicago choose to deny their citizens this national right and enact a citywide ban on ownership of all firearms. They got away with this for yeras, with no one from the federal government steeping in and ordering them to stop. It was only after a group of concerned citizens brough a lawsuit was Chicago forced to comply with federal law. And now Mayor Daley is seeking to enact new laws to circumvent that and make it so difficult to own a gun in Chicago that no one would go through all the trouble.
My state officials can only operate within Washington's confines? News to them and me. They don't care what the federal law is, if they don't like it, they'll just ignore it and enact their own laws.
The Senate is still elected on a state-by-state basis, rather than by districts apportioned by population. It also has features like the filibuster which make it possible to hold off legislation that might win a majority in the House. That's why we bother with a bicameral legislature.
The reason we had the 17th Amendment is that a legislative house that's not democratically elected would lose power. Voters would demand that a body they didn't vote for surrender its powers, and the Senate would be like Britain's House of Lords or Canada's or Australia's Senate -- something of a rubber stamp for whatever the lower house wanted. To keep features like representation by states, rather than by districts of more or less equal populations, and the filibuster, we allowed popular election of Senators.
However bad the result may have been, doing away with the 17th Amendment would eventually mean doing away with the Senate or at least doing away with any meaningful role it might have.
(In brief: Prior to the 17th amendment, state governments had influence on federal legislation via the senators they appointed. This tended to undermine the tyrannical centralization of power that we’ve seen in the federal government in our lifetime, keeping political power more decentralized, local/grassroots in nature, and ultimately more subservient to the citizenry.)
It was more the 16th -- Income Tax -- Amendment that did that. When the federal government had access to a source of revenue greater than had been imaginable earlier, its relationship to the citizenry and the states inevitably changed.
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.