Replies

Even though the Constitution begins with "we the people," it was really "We the states" that formed the Constitution. The Constitution itself indicates that it would not come into existence until two-thirds of the thirteen states agreed to accept it. So when one thinks of the federal government of the United States of America, one should think of a government with limitations imposed on it by the Constitution and with powers given to it by the various states. This, of course, presumes--historically this is the case--the thirteen original states preceded the existence of the federal government and actually, literally gave away some of their powers so as to form a central government. As an example, before 1789, many states issued their own currency and had their own armies. this obviously is something they cannot do under the Constitution because they gave those powers away to the central , federal government.

Copyed from "THE FREEDOM ANSWER BOOK" by Judge A. P. Napolitano.

A very nice little book....

After researching the founding/framing era for over a decade, and the 17th Amendment for about the past two years, it was only a few weeks ago that I realized the central problem with the 17th.

The 17th denied consent of the governed. It is as easy as that.

Every republic prior to ours featured, by definition, participation of the people either directly or through some form of representation. The law acted on the people, and the people were present in the legislative body. Perfect sense.

The American republic was different, for the constitution acted not only on the people, but the states as well.

In order to be consistent with republican theory and experience, the states MUST have a seat at the legislative table if the government is to constitutionally act on them. To remain consistent with fundamental republicanism, every clause in the constitution which dealt with the states should have been repealed upon ratification of the 17th.

Now that of course can't be done because the states, people and the government they created are thoroughly intertwined in their duties and powers.

Removing the states from congress makes as much sense as removing the people from congress. None.

That is my point, the states are essential to the smooth operation of our republic and cannot be removed without causing internal contradictions which must lead to dissolution or tyranny.