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

To: Sola Veritas

Yes, the 16th and 17th amendments are both very controversial. For example, many (perhaps most) people like the notion of “the people” directly electing Senators. The down side is that our state governments have lost their direct connection to Senators and thus have no direct representation in the U.S. government. As a result, federalism and states’ rights have taken a beating. As things now stand, though, most people take your view of the 17th amendment and it will likely remain with us for as far out as we can see.


21 posted on 08/10/2012 3:12:26 PM PDT by Tau Food (Tom Hoefling for President - 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: Tau Food

“The down side is that our state governments have lost their direct connection to Senators and thus have no direct representation in the U.S. government. As a result, federalism and states’ rights have taken a beating.”

Actually, the Civil War pretty much ended “State’s Rights” (as originally intended) and the idea that this country was just a “Union” of sovereign States. Before the Civil War people used to say (which is proper grammar) that “the United States are...” Since then we all say “the United States is.” The Civil War (for better or worse) changed us from and “are to an is.” Most Americans think of the country as a single entity, not a union of states. States are viewed, by most, as inferior to the Country. States have become to the country what counties are to states. I’m not saying this is right or wrong, I’m simply stating what I “think” the majority view of our country is.


24 posted on 08/10/2012 3:34:54 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

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