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

Skip to comments.

Utah's Liljenquist Pledges to Work to Repeal NDAA and 17th Amendment
The New American ^ | April 25, 2012 | Joe Wolverton, II

Posted on 04/25/2012 4:09:49 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last

1 posted on 04/25/2012 4:09:52 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I don’t want power given to states, I want power given to the people


2 posted on 04/25/2012 4:12:15 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

THAT is a Republican I could support.


3 posted on 04/25/2012 4:13:35 PM PDT by Tupelo ( 2012 TEA PARTYER but no longer a Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

“His stances on the Balanced Budget Amendment (he’s for it), Cut, Cap and Balance (he describes himself as a “vocal supporter” of it), and immigration (he advocates for the use of the E-Verify system) are inconsistent with his commitment to adhere to the enumerated powers of the Constitution. The Constitution grants no power to the federal government to act in any one of these areas, thus that power is reserved by the states and the people.”

Silly argument. (1) If it’s an AMENDMENT, then it’s in the constitution. (2) Cutting and balancing the budget is an inherent part of the budgeting process. Congress is authorized to spend money. Therefore, it can cut the spending and balance it. (3) Finally, controlling immigration is part of sovereignty. I don’t see how the author thinks the US has no business controlling immigration into the United States.


4 posted on 04/25/2012 4:19:30 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; Utah Girl; Andyman; colorcountry; bob84108; DFH69; pennyfarmer; JDW11235; ...

I do hope that Dan Liljenquist manages to win this. We need more like him in the U.S. Senate.


5 posted on 04/25/2012 4:19:56 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (A liberal's compassion is limited to the size of other peoples' paychecks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued; BillyBoy; Impy; AuH2ORepublican; JohnnyZ

I bitterly oppose the repeal of the 17th. That would prevent the election of Republicans in states with heavy and reliable Democrat legislative majorities for perpetuity, and those that would elect Republicans would likely be establishment type RINOs.


6 posted on 04/25/2012 4:24:44 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

It’s a lousy idea, but it won’t pass. On the whole, Liljenquist is a great candidate, this unfortunate error aside.


7 posted on 04/25/2012 4:28:22 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (A liberal's compassion is limited to the size of other peoples' paychecks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Repeal the 17th! I LOVE IT!

The Founders knew that one house had to be chosen by the states, not in popular election, in order to have wisdom and deliberation in lawmaking.

The 17th short-circuits that, and makes a Senator just another election whore, but with a 6-year term, that allows him to do a lot more damage before he is thrown out.

8 posted on 04/25/2012 4:37:16 PM PDT by backwoods-engineer (I will vote against ANY presidential candidate who had non-citizen parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I may have to move to Utah just to vote for him.


9 posted on 04/25/2012 4:38:39 PM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
I don’t want power given to states, I want power given to the people

So, do you oppose taking power away from FedGov, just because it can't be immediately transferred to the people?

Wake up. Every function that has been devolved to the states (e.g., gun legislation) has resulted in more freedom for the people. The Founders intended government to be closer to the people. The several states are surely closer to the people than an all-powerful central government.

10 posted on 04/25/2012 4:41:52 PM PDT by backwoods-engineer (I will vote against ANY presidential candidate who had non-citizen parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I agree with him.


11 posted on 04/25/2012 4:44:43 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Did Hatch vote in favor of the NDAA?


12 posted on 04/25/2012 4:49:48 PM PDT by ChocChipCookie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

I take it you’ll support Mr. Hatch then?

(I currently oppose repealing the 17th Amendment until we get rid of the disease known as fleebagging Democrats. I do support Mr. Liljenquist, however.)


13 posted on 04/25/2012 6:02:09 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Occupy DC General Assembly: We are Marxist tools. WE ARE MARXIST TOOLS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ChocChipCookie

It wouldn’t surprise me if he did.


14 posted on 04/25/2012 6:03:12 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Occupy DC General Assembly: We are Marxist tools. WE ARE MARXIST TOOLS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Nope, Hatch needs to retire. 36 years is long enough (frankly, for probably 90-95% of the Senate, 6 years is too long).


15 posted on 04/25/2012 6:07:02 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

That is far less of a problem, as long as those Democrats represent the Democrat legislature in their individual states.

The disaster that was the 17th Amendment did two terrible things. First it made senators responsible to no one, if they could just fool the public or buy the election once each six years. Since it was passed, senators just utterly ignore their home states and think of themselves as independent agents, or much worse, “federal” representatives, or even today “international” representatives. They act like Robin Williams in his role as King of the Moon.

The other terrible thing was a side effect of this. By not having to answer to their states, the states were eliminated as the gateway to direct federal involvement in the lives of individual citizens. If a bureaucrat wants to involve himself in your life today, he can, and your state cannot prevent him from doing so, or even act as a buffer.

As such, the 17th Amendment was the enabling act of the 16th Amendment, The Income Tax, *and* the 18th Amendment, Prohibition, and all the federal prohibition-style laws created ever since.

Were Republican state legislatures responsible for appointing Republican senators, a LOT of RINOs would get the boot, because RINOs have not just made it a habit of sticking it to conservatives, but to their own states as well.


16 posted on 04/25/2012 6:55:48 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("It is already like a government job," he said, "but with goats." -- Iranian goat smuggler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Giving power to the states indirectly and directly gives power to the people. Among other constitutional balances of power, the power of the federal government, the state governments, and the people are supposed to form a balance.

If the states abuse their people, the 14th Amendment allows the federal government to intervene to protect them. But if the federal government wants to abuse the people, the 17th Amendment takes away the power of the states to protect the people from the feds.

Put another way, compare what your state demands of you to what the federal government demands of you. If the primary government you deal with is that of your state, you have more freedom and liberty than if you must obey the feds, whose demands are endless.


17 posted on 04/25/2012 7:02:43 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("It is already like a government job," he said, "but with goats." -- Iranian goat smuggler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; Clintonfatigued; fieldmarshaldj; Impy; AuH2ORepublican; JohnnyZ
>> I don’t want power given to states, I want power given to the people <<

Amenm GeronL! I get tired of freepers telling us the "conservative" position is to repeat talking points used by pro-slavery Democrats from the 1860s. The RATs and mainstream media must love that stuff, they can keep pretending our side is the one that promoted slavery and use it to turn voters away from the GOP in states with horrible state governments in both parties. I don't want "states" to have more power, I want individuals to have more power.

>> Wake up. Every function that has been devolved to the states (e.g., gun legislation) has resulted in more freedom for the people. <<

Really? News to those of us in Illinois and many other states. Every power the federal government has granted my state government has resulted in more tyranny over the lives of Illinois citizes and corruption for state bureucrats. If you can think of any time they've given me "more freedom" when my state government had exclusive jurisdiction over an issue, please let me know. The freedom to keep and bear arms is BECAUSE its guranteed by federal law, not because states are given the "right" to do whatever they want with gun legislation (if states were given that "right", at least a dozen or so liberal states would pass laws to immediately ban private ownership of guns. Deep down, you "states rights" Conservatives know this, that's why you'd never want the 2nd amendment repealed and"send it back to the states")

>> I bitterly oppose the repeal of the 17th. That would prevent the election of Republicans in states with heavy and reliable Democrat legislative majorities for perpetuity, and those that would elect Republicans would likely be establishment type RINOs. It’s a lousy idea, but it won’t pass. On the whole, Liljenquist is a great candidate, this unfortunate error aside. <<

I agree it will never pass, but the fact is a bunch of self-described "conservatives" keep trying to elect candidates who will insist on pushing this stuff. It's going to embarrass our side when they do, and that is a legitimate reason to give pause about Liljenquist.

After reading the FR aritlce about his views, I can say of his world outlook is quite different from mine. As Impy noted, many of these "you hate the Constitution if you don't agree with me" types overlap, so the people screaming about how the citizens electing Senators is evil are the also ones telling us that democracy is bad (that any "consevative" is offended by the idea that we the people are the ultimate source of the federal goverment's authority is distrurbing to me), amendments banning abortion are terrible, gay marriage enacted at the state level by activist judges is "just fine", anyone that doesn't have two natural born U.S. citizen parents is ineligible for federal office (and you love Obama if you disagree with their premise, etc.), etc., etc.

My experience is alot of these "conservatives" have gravitated to quacks like Ron Paul and Donald Trump. The recent thread on Justin Amash having a RINOish record was a good example too, he was touted by some tea-party groups as some wonderful "constitutional" conservative when he ran. Walter Jones Jr. is another fine example. These kinds of conservatives will cross over to help the RATs accomplish their goals on numerous issues, claiming they're doing it for some noble constitutional reason that the rest of us ignorant masses just don't "get" because we're not enlightened like them. You know, same kind of condescending attitude we get from the liberal elite.

I'm NOT saying Hatch is better, he's been there for decades too long and has grown squishy. If the choice was Hatch or Liljenquist, I'd hold my nose for Liljenquist just because Hatch needs to go. All I'm saying is I'm getting a bad vibe from this guy and his supporters, so I'd keep a close eye on him before jumping to applaud Liljenquist as a rising conservative star. Remember next time, I warned freepers...

18 posted on 04/25/2012 7:07:41 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Illegals for Perry/Gingrich 2012 : Don't be "heartless"/ Be "humane")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy; fieldmarshaldj; Clintonfatigued; Impy
>> As such, the 17th Amendment was the enabling act of the 16th Amendment << <

Of course. After passing the 17th amendment, those rascally popularly elected Senators immediately got into their time machine and traveled backwards in time two years earlier to convince the state-legislative appointed Senators to pass the 16th amendment and enact an income tax! Obviously, due to the fact all state-legislature appointed Senators and infallible and noble politicians committed to the best interests of their states, they NEVER would have DARED enact an income tax if not the evil time-traveling popularly elected Senators from the future making them do so.

Likewise, the passage of the 17th amendment is also directly responsible for World War I, the sinking of the titanic, the trail of tears, the assassination of James A. Garfield, bleeding kansas, Dred Scott, Aaron Burr killing Alexander Hamilton, the stamp act, and of course, the Black Death in medieval Europe.

Never underestimate the evil that the 17th amendment can wrought due to the abilities of popularity elected Senators to time-travel back to events that happened BEFORE the amendment was passed.

19 posted on 04/25/2012 7:24:07 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Illegals for Perry/Gingrich 2012 : Don't be "heartless"/ Be "humane")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

I agree with your analysis -cases in point, the repeal of DADT, the passage of Health Care Reform, NCLB, the Department of Education, Voter Rights Act, etcetera -ALL squeaky wheel, knee jerk, or special interest group populist initiatives that did not give States a seat at the table to craft and add input into.


20 posted on 04/25/2012 8:08:44 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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