Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lamb: Should States Have a Voice in our Federal Government?
GOPUSA ^ | January 10, 2011 | Henry Lamb

Posted on 01/10/2011 8:03:51 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Edited on 01/11/2011 6:52:14 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

The states created the federal government; they designed it carefully to be sure that the federal government could never gain unlimited power to govern as a tyrant. Today, however, the federal government recognizes no limitations on its power, it issues edicts to states and individuals alike, with no fear of retribution. It has gained the power to rule as a tyrant and does.


(Excerpt) Read more at gopusa.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; 17thamendment; elections; legislatures; repeal; senate; states

1 posted on 01/10/2011 8:03:56 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Yes, dump the 17th Amendment.


2 posted on 01/10/2011 8:05:15 PM PST by Nowhere Man (General James Mattoon Scott, where are you when we need you? We need a regime change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

So, what were the reasons/abuses that caused the 17th to happen?


3 posted on 01/10/2011 8:06:32 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

This wasn’t a response to any particular British act. It was that the states were seen as the ultimate source of sovereignty, and they “pooled” that sovereignty in creating the United States. Hence why states have “police powers” to regulate and control things - they have sovereignty limited only by their own constitutions and some (sometimes too broadly read) limitations imposed by the commerce clause and some other clauses (like individual states can’t enter into treaties with sovereign governments).

So Senators were meant to be representatives of their states, as a counterbalance to the people-centric nature of House representatives. Their longer terms made more sense, too; they were meant to serve as long-term agents of their states’ interest in D.C. If they now serve as another arm of the popular will, there’s no reason for them to serve more than 2 years at a term. I do think there are plenty of institutional advantages to having a body with a longer-term view even with direct elections, though. Senate comity may be on the way out but it was an important stabilizer while the body worked as intended.


4 posted on 01/10/2011 8:16:34 PM PST by socalgop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The reason the FedGov becomes increasingly fat, sluggish, stupid, and incompetent, is because it tries to do too much.

If it delegated its responsibility properly, it would have 50 brains, instead of one.

And if each one of those 50 brains delegated their responsibility properly, they would have a few dozen County Brains. And each one of those County Brains would have a few dozen City Brains. The City Brains would have their PTA Brains, and so on, and so forth.

When I was in the AF, one of our management principles was to delegate authority to the lowest level possible.

I remember when I was in Saudi Arabia, I had the privilege of visiting the Patriot missile battery, run by the Army.

The site commander was a Second Lieutenant, and his enlisted sidekick was a Private First Class.

You have any idea how much responsibility they carried? But they did it.

5 posted on 01/10/2011 8:16:38 PM PST by FlyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Liberalism....


6 posted on 01/10/2011 8:18:07 PM PST by Red Badger (Whenever these vermin call you an 'idiot', you can be sure that you are doing something right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: socalgop

Sorry, I didn’t read your post carefully enough - I thought you meant why the original arrangement was the way it was. There was a sense of regulatory capture championed by the original Progressive movement. Before the amendment a lot of states held referendums to elect their senators, in a de facto popular vote, kind of like the similar movement to introduce a popular presidential vote by state amendments apportioning votes by electoral district or population percentage.


7 posted on 01/10/2011 8:24:43 PM PST by socalgop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: socalgop

That doesn’t answer my question as to the immediate drivers of enacting the 17th.


8 posted on 01/10/2011 8:34:55 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Repealing the 17th amendment will achieve nothing.

What’s needed is the direct ability for the states and/or people to repeal bad federal actions. The Swiss have this ability, and we need it also.

I also have come to believe that vesting the entire executive power in a single person is too dangerous. It works fine if that person is George Washington or Ronald Reagan, but is disastrous if a leader of bad character is elected.


9 posted on 01/10/2011 8:36:13 PM PST by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Ultimately, this Amendment is one of the two most offensive to the original vision of the Founders. It MUST be repealed to restore any semblance of the Constitutional Republic they designed.


10 posted on 01/10/2011 8:38:22 PM PST by patriot preacher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Members of both political parties in the legislatures of the states are much of the problem. They legislate and spend toward socialism. They regulate for globalists against domestic business competition. They made many deals with Hillary’s Administration for getting enormous amounts of federal money for social engineering programs.


11 posted on 01/10/2011 8:38:29 PM PST by familyop (cbt. engr. (cbt), NG, '89-' 96, Duncan Hunter or no-vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devere
I also have come to believe that vesting the entire executive power in a single person is too dangerous.

Yeah, a cabal is so much better.

And, by the way, your comment about the 17th Amendment demonstrates you have little idea about what it has done to eliminate the restrictions states and coalitions of states were able impose on the federal government.
12 posted on 01/10/2011 8:39:43 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: devere
"What’s needed is the direct ability for the states and/or people to repeal bad federal actions."

...private interest citizens to repeal bad federal, state and local actions and shut down wasteful offices, IMO. The Dept. of Education and many social programs would quickly be gone, and government, much smaller. Men in construction work (for example) are not the problem, contrary to popular propaganda. Most government employees, teachers/instructors and businesses that get revenues from government are the problem.


13 posted on 01/10/2011 8:43:46 PM PST by familyop (cbt. engr. (cbt), NG, '89-' 96, Duncan Hunter or no-vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Do away with the federal no government before America is history.


14 posted on 01/10/2011 8:48:03 PM PST by taxtruth (Don't end the fed,jail the fed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devere
I also have come to believe that vesting the entire executive power in a single person is too dangerous. It works fine if that person is George Washington or Ronald Reagan, but is disastrous if a leader of bad character is elected.

Rather than dilute the office, there is a better solution.

Don't...Elect...People...Of...Bad...Character.

Which can also be interpreted as "Don't elect Democrats".

15 posted on 01/10/2011 8:51:28 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

“I also have come to believe that vesting the entire executive power in a single person is too dangerous.”

“Yeah, a cabal is so much better.”

Well it works for Switzerland. They have a currency backed by gold and undramatic elections. I suppose you think we’re doing better?

I think it’s obvious that any system that can pluck a Muslim communist like Obama out of obscurity and vest him with full executive authority, is broken and needs fixing.

“the restrictions states and coalitions of states were able impose on the federal government.”

Do you have any examples from history to substantiate that?

My understanding is that Congress passed the 17th amendment because almost 2/3 of the states had already petitioned for a constitutional convention to propose it.


16 posted on 01/10/2011 9:03:16 PM PST by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: familyop

State Legislatures resemble elementary school student government even more than Congress does.


17 posted on 01/10/2011 9:13:22 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

If there were no 17th Amendment, would someone totally lacking in credentials like Obama, have a chance to get elected? If not, then repealing the 17th is of paramount importance.


18 posted on 01/10/2011 9:40:17 PM PST by TheThinker (Communists: taking over the world one kooky doomsday scenario at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: socalgop
"In the worst case, Delaware failed to elect from March 1899 to March 1903; by the end of this period both of Delaware's seats were vacant for two years.[3]"

That sounds pretty good to me.

19 posted on 01/10/2011 9:49:23 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man

Amen. Repeal the 17th


20 posted on 01/10/2011 10:26:07 PM PST by el_texicano (Liberals, Socialist, DemocRATS, all touchy, feely, mind numbed robots, useless idiots at best!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man

Amen. Repeal the 17th


21 posted on 01/10/2011 10:26:07 PM PST by el_texicano (Liberals, Socialist, DemocRATS, all touchy, feely, mind numbed robots, useless idiots at best!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

BTW, my understanding is that many state legislatures used to be set up with one branch allocated according to population, and another branch allocated by county. Unfortunately, some judges decided this violated some imaginary “one man one vote” principle, notwithstanding the fact that the Founders seemed to favor a bicameral legislature in which one branch was decidedly not allocated by population.


22 posted on 01/10/2011 11:56:12 PM PST by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

BTTT


23 posted on 01/11/2011 1:19:23 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
That doesn’t answer my question as to the immediate drivers of enacting the 17th.

Oddly enough, the Wikipedia page about the 17th seems fairly even-handed in it's description of the history. Also, FindLaw talks about the reasoning for the amendment in the annotations section of their webpage on it.

24 posted on 01/11/2011 1:29:51 AM PST by Doug Loss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: supercat

And you can also see that still in effect for Presidential elections. The people vote in the election, but then the states have their say in the electorial college (where it really matters).

Just like how the Senate used to be.


25 posted on 01/11/2011 2:17:27 AM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: devere
My understanding is that Congress passed the 17th amendment because almost 2/3 of the states had already petitioned for a constitutional convention to propose it.

And it, like Prohibition, was a bad idea.
26 posted on 01/11/2011 3:03:10 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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