Posted on 02/06/2015 1:16:27 PM PST by Jacquerie
Aye, aye on the nineteenth, there was a time when I would have said that repealing it was an insane idea but now that we see the results of the woman’s vote so clearly I am convinced the founders knew what they were doing. At the least we should raise the voting age to 21, preferably 25 and limit the vote to people who PAY taxes rather than living off those who do. Of course none of this is going to happen and without it any other amendments are just foolish grandstanding. Lowering the voting age to 18 was absurd, the only bright spot is that most don’t vote at that age anyway. The modern forty year old is probably less mature than the average fourteen year old was when this country was founded but we lowered the voting age as if the opposite were true.
That is an interesting concept I've never heard before.
I think it would be worthwhile to research:
1) Why the original Constitution had state Senators elected from the legislatures instead of a direct vote of the people. I've always thought it was because the state legislature was a republican-type representation of the people of the state more than a direct vote which is simply a flat democratic majority-rule that can drown out the votes of the smaller communities. I like that idea, of course, but not sure it has made that much of a difference in that aspect of things.
2) What was the reason and intent of the ratifiers of the 17A for going to a direct popular vote.
if the Senator were to run a campaign appeal to the people that was disconnected from the interests of the state legislatures
Seems like you've got a root problem if the wishes of the people of the state are disconnected from their own legislatures.
“In other words, most of the federal dollars that the states receive are arguably state revenues which the corrupt feds stole from the states by means of constitutionally indefensible federal taxes.”
State revenues? And the states would have gathered those revenues from whom?
State level politicians, to the extent that they think about such things, are apparently just fine with an arrangement where the Federal government does the taxing and where states get to do some of the spending. Don’t expect them to upset the apple cart.
Well, I’m not going to spend the hours necessary to write an article on the articles of confederation for much the same reason I don’t spent a lot of time on Article V : I view it as a waste of time. Harmless, and probably more interesting than stamp collecting, but still a waste of time.
The Articles of Confederation are long dead. To the victor go the spoils (and the authorship of history), so its really sort of irrelevant in any case. What we have now is a constitution with greatly centralized powers. The question as it relates to article V is what should be done about the text of that document. I’m of the view that “nothing” is the best answer.
What I will do, though, if you’re interested is ping a few links to articles I’ve read over time regarding the A o C.
From the people of the state.
Let me ask you which is the preferred route: a state taxing its residents for highway improvements, or the federal government taxing the whole country and then the state has to ask the federal government for funds? The same for education?
Sure, today the states do both: they tax and they seek federal funds. Why? What if the federal funds never left the state in the first place, and there was more available locally for the state to tap into?
Why should the residents of Texas or Florida pay for a bridge in Alaska if Alaska wants a bridge?
-PJ
It's not that the people are disconnected, it's that they don't pay attention. That's why we have a representative government, so that we can pick people whose job it is to pay attention. Then we grade them on their performance when they come up for re-election.
-PJ
You should read the scholarly papers by Todd Zywicki in this thread, Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment, especially this one. It lays out the common reasons why the 17th passed, and then tries to disprove them by pointing out incongruities in the arguments, and then finally explains a market within the Senate for trading political votes based on longevity (the ability to back up the promise of future votes due to the guarantee of being there).
The bottom line (to me, anyway) is that the original system wasn't corrupt enough, which is why the 17th was passed -- to give Senators (as power brokers) the ability to promise to deliver legislation because of the guarantee of remaining in the Senate long enough to make good on trades for votes.
-PJ
I would go even farther. Why should the residents of say Richmond VA pay for road improvements in Roanoke VA? Why should they pay at all if a private company is willing to do so in exchange for a toll?
Sadly, the residents of both places are taxed for roads at the federal and state level thay they may never use.
My point in my earlier post was that we’re not talking Federal or state revenues, but YOUR revenues taken out of YOUR pocket.
I never had a fire in my home, but that doesn't mean that my taxes to pay for the fire department was unfair to me, and nor would road repairs be for streets that I never use. They all contribute to the quality of life that I expect in return from the social contract.
Now, does that social contract extend to the nation as a whole? That's the nub of the matter. When the Constitution was ratified, the people of Massachusetts expected the people of Virginia to take care of their own. They limited the federal government to common defense, disputes between states, and a single voice to other nations. The rest was left to the sovereign states to address individually as each saw fit to the peculiarities of their own state.
The Congress was to be where these matters were debated and agreed to. If money were to be taken from the people, the people's representatives would have a say. The justifications for taking the money would be for a common interest among the several states, which the Senate would have determined to be necessary.
Today, the Senate no longer represents the states. I would suggest that it doesn't represent the people, either. It represents amorphous interests from ambiguous sources with undefined agendas. The Senators themselves are motivated by paying for the next election. They have aligned around party, and recently have seen their parties shift from under them. I'd go further and say that the old-timers like Reid, McConnell, Hatch, McCain, Feinstein and the rest, are blind to the ramifications of the changes going on around them. They are stuck in a mindset of controlling their station in life because it's what they've been doing for most of their lives. It's what they Know how to do, and so is their hammer to all the problem nails that they see.
That's why a movement to restore the Senate back to the states can only be done by the states via an Article V convention. What we have to do is convince state lawmakers that they are not subservient to federal lawmakers, that Senators are not their "betters" but their representatives, and that they have independent power if they are bold enough to take it.
-PJ
My stance on 19th however comes from, my dear old Ma... she is the first one to say so... then again every "Martin Luther King Day" this same woman writes on her daily planing calendar on the side of the fridge "No Mail, No Bank. Thanks, Martin!" I hear you about the voting age as well... the immaturity of the modern 40 year-old compared to 235 years ago. I mean, General Joseph Warren, a Doctor, was 34 years-old when he was killed at Bunker Hill. The modern 34 year old is living in mommy and daddy's basement playing X-ray 360 or whatever. We moved away from our citizens having ownership of the Republic... and rather than entrust it to the the actual stakeholders; the businessmen, the farmers and landowners, the makers, creators, inventors, producers... we have allowed our representatives to squander the promise of this Republic, selling out our God-given freedoms in the process...all by giving a say to the takers, destroyers, deconstructors, and consumers. I've had it, honestly... I am working my ass off presently to pay off the debts of idle freeloaders. It's time to put a chain across the driveway of the farm with a sign that says all trespassers will be shot, dead... and just go Galt.
X-ray = X Box 360 in a land without autocorrect... I need to turn that crap offon my replacement phone already.
That may very well be true although I have yet to see hard evidence that the 17A popular state vote for senator is a critical factor although it may very well be a contributor.
There are too many issues that threaten to extinguish our lives, liberties, and free pursuits in America to try to tackle them all at the same time. If we don't prioritize the problems and the solutions, our focus will be dissipated and our effect weakened. The first step is identifying the most critical political problem(s) America faces. The second step is identifying the underlying causes and then the best solution to beat the problem(s).
Without a doubt, the #1 problem in our land is the behemoth size of the mostly unconstitutional $4 trillion federal government which sometimes makes a feint show of abiding by the Constitution but has long since departed from its original intent and understanding. The Obama administration is the last in a long line that has brought the resulting tyranny of the Rule of Man front and center. If we the people do not recover the Constitutional Rule of Law, we lose the ONLY legal bulwark protecting our freedoms and are left with tyranny. THAT IMO, is the #1 problem.
How has the federal government manged to accumulate this massive and unconstitutional size and power? Up until now, it has been mostly judicial activism on the part of SCOTUS allowing and ratifying unconstitutional federal power not contemplated by our Founders. The top three political causes, IMO, are:
1) "The Incorporation Doctrine" (judicially misapplied to the 14th Amendment)leading to a growth in the feds power not contemplated by the ratifiers of the 14A and leading to a parade of horribles like banning prayer and Bible study in state schools, 70+ million abortions, threatening gun rights, interference with state marriage laws, threatening free exercise of religion, etc.
. 2) The [Interstate] Commerce Clause (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 3)expanded to give the feds almost unlimited power over intrastate and local economic activities leading to minimum wage laws, individual subsidies, and interference in just about every business enterprise and economic endeavor, the latest, most obvious being the push to socialize healthcare with "Obamacare".
3) The "Necessary and Proper Clause" (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 18) expanded beyond constitutional grounds and limits to such an extent that a quasi-fourth branch of government has been created: the Administrative State with behemoth bureaucracies like the $1 trillion unconstitutional Dept of Health and Human Services.
Although the 17A issue may be an important one (I certainly believe in the republican principle of decentralized representation), I think these other issue are more directly the causes of our #1 problem.
What political solutions? Well, one is the Article V Convention of States for proposing certain amendments limited to the issues of out-of-control government. There are many steps to this and it will hopefully be successful. However, even if somehow the right amendments with the right "airtight" language are ratified, there is a concern about enforcement if these amendments do what they should do: slash the unconstitutional part of the federal government which is probably at least 80%. Who's going to force the hundreds of thousands of government officials, bureaucratic heads, and government workers to pack their bags with no job and leave D.C.? I think we've reached the point where the feds are so big and powerful that they are simply not going to do much of anything to substantially downsize itself, regardless of the Constitution or constitutional amendments.
What does that leave us with for a solution? State nullification of unconstitutional federal law. Leave off cajoling, forcing, begging, trying to fix the feds who don't want to be fixed and let the states assert their constitutional power as supported by the Supremacy Clause and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. State sovereignty. I think that's where we are right now.
CWII.
BTTT
How will the people "grade them" if they are not paying attention? Why don't they pay attention? Because so many have lost the vision of love of freedom from government and the price it takes to keep it.
Freedom and the Constitution belong to the AMERICAN PEOPLE and no one else. After it's all said and done, if the people fail to keep this most precious, last bastion of freedom, embodied and protected by the U.S. Constitution, then they have failed in what Benjamin Franklin said when asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” to which he replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
Presuming that a state's taxpayers want the “government” services that they are now getting from the feds, instead of their tax dollars leaving the state via constitutionally indefensible federal taxes to pay for likewise indefensible federal services, the states would take control over such revenues.
Then the states would no longer have to subject kids to federal anti-family value socialistic indoctrination in order to receive so-called federal dollars that can arguably be regarded as stolen state revenues anyway.
The important thing is that it would probably be easier for a given state’s voters to work with thair state's lawmakers to establish punitive recall laws for removing state politicians who prove that they cannot be trusted with taxpayer dollars.
President George Washington:
“No country upon Earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings…Much to be regretted indeed would it be, were to neglect the means and depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to, so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass. The Great Governor of the Universe has led us too long and too far…to forsake us in the midst of it…We may now and then, get bewildered; but I hope and trust that there is good sense and virtue enough left to recover the right path.”
In Washington’s letter to General Benjamin Lincoln, his deputy in the War, who accepted British General Cornwallis’ sword at his surrender.
“It shall still be my endeavor to manifest, by overt acts, the purity of my inclination for promoting the happiness of mankind, as well as the sincerity of my desires to contribute whatever may be in my power towards the preservation of the civil and religious liberties of the American people.”
In his letter to the Methodist Episcopal Bishop of New York, 1789
“I am sure that never was a people, who had more reason to acknowledge a Divine interposition in their affairs, than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe that they have forgotten that agency, which was so often manifested during our Revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God who is alone able to protect them.”
In his letter written to John Armstrong, 1792
“While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.”
In his letter to the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Churches in North America
“Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
“Purity of morals is the only sure foundation of public happiness in any country.”
The Writings of George Washington, October 21, 1778
“The federal government …can never be in danger of degenerating…so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the people.”
Writings, February 7, 1778
“Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.”
Writings, March 3, 1797
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morals are indispensable supports…Let it simply be asked, ‘Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?’ ...”
Very good analysis; actually quite good. Certainly losing suffrage of state legislatures to Congress was a contributor and in my view a critical factor. Influence in the Senate can reverse all the abuses you cite above, even those abuses committed by the judiciary as the Senate has a role in confirming judges and in setting budgets and numbers throughout the judiciary.
Today we have hindsight and we also have Mark Levin’s excellent suggestions for amendments. We also have the excellent members that drive the COS Project and we have ALEC, all of which are quite valuable.
As for Article V, it may be a challenge for people to even find out who their state legislators are but one must do needs to be done and send the state legislators the below amendment proposal. We can be assured that state legislators will like it very much because it’s right up their alley, it’s natural for them with virtually no state level political repercussions.
Here’s what they need to propose as an amendment to the Constitution:
________________________________________
To redress the balance of powers between the federal government and the States and to restore effective suffrage of State Legislatures to Congress, the following amendment is proposed:
AMENDMENT XXVIII
Section 1.
A Senator in Congress shall be subject to recall by their respective state legislature or by voter referendum in their respective state.
Section 2.
Upon a majority vote in two-thirds of state legislatures, federal statutes and federal court decisions shall be overridden.
Section 3.
Term limits for Senators in Congress shall be set by vote in their respective state legislatures but in no case shall be set less than twelve years.
________________________________________
If Section 1 above is replaced with a repeal of the 17th Amendment, that may be even better but it may be a hard sale. Recalling US Senators gets the job done for state legislatures and it also requires interaction with the voters as they retain the right to vote for their US Senator.
With the above amendment, there would be no Obamacare, no same-sex marriage nonsense, no Executive Amnesty and so on. Most of the social issue tyranny would go away. And with Section 2. above, all of the abuses you cite could be deliberated and overridden.
Be that as it may, I'd rather have those who are paying attention select the Senators, rather than sit idly and lament about how my low-information neighbor is choosing my Senator.
-PJ
This is a form of state nullification but it is critically missing the limitation that states ONLY reject UNCONSTITUTIONAL federal acts. Otherwise that state act and that amendment violates the Supremacy Clause. The rejected federal statutes and court decisions must be deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a good-faith effort by the state legislature or court to apply the original text, intent and understanding of the Constitution.
However, valid state nullification is ALREADY a power of the state. As the Ninth and Tenth Amendments confirm, any power not granted by the Constitution to the feds or prohibited by it from the states, belongs to the state and the people. There is nothing prohibiting the states from BEGINNING IMMEDIATELY to nullify unconstitutional federal acts and decisions. Arizona has just passed such legislation allowing the state to nullify unconstitutional federal acts.
Even though valid state nullification needs no constitutional amendment, an amendment wouldn't hurt as a confirmation of that right which is exactly what the first Ten Amendments do. So, like the first Ten Amendments, the wording should start with something like, "Congress or the federal government shall not abridge the right of a state..."
We must get the Constitution into the center of any national political discussion because it is the Law of the Land, our Rule of Law, the only legal protection of our freedoms and free way of life. If WE the people do not preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, nobody else will, certainly not the government who hates the limitations of the anti-government Constitution.
> “Otherwise that state act and that amendment violates the Supremacy Clause.”
So what? The 11th Amendment then violates Article 3, Section 2? No, it amends it.
Section 2 of Amendment 28 above amends the Supremacy Clause. The states by majority vote of 2/3’s of state legislatures can override anything. And why not? Can 2/3’s of both chambers of Congress override the Executive? Can 2/3’s of both chambers of Congress and 3/4’s of State Legislatures override anything? Si se pueden.
What Section 2 of Amendment 28 above does is tilt more power to states to override anything the federal government concocts. And why not? The federal government has caused a lot of grief and it’s time to put them back on training wheels or in the doghouse or both.
And Section 2 above was not dreamt up by me. It was the work product of Mark Levin and Constitutional Scholar and Law Professor Randy Barnett. You can take issue with them if it pleases you.
You should listen several times to this tour de force presentation before turning green with constipated self-importance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdZuV8JnvvA
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.