Skip to comments.Lamb: Should States Have a Voice in our Federal Government?
Posted on 01/10/2011 8:03:51 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks RocksEdited 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 ...
Yes, dump the 17th Amendment.
So, what were the reasons/abuses that caused the 17th to happen?
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.
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.
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.
That doesn’t answer my question as to the immediate drivers of enacting the 17th.
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.
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.
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.
Do away with the federal no government before America is history.
Rather than dilute the office, there is a better solution.
Which can also be interpreted as "Don't elect Democrats".
“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.
State Legislatures resemble elementary school student government even more than Congress does.
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.
That sounds pretty good to me.
Amen. Repeal the 17th
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.