Jan 9, 2011
The 17th Amendment
The key to restoring lost freedoms
The fourth government
The U.S. Constitution was once FEARED, AWED and RESPECTED. No longer is this true!
"The 17th Amendment defanged the Constitution"
, so agrees Henry Lamb, who clearly explains how the power of the States to appoint Senators was what had once, prior to 1913, made the Constitution feared and respected by our federal officials.
(The Christian Solution argues that it actually took another 20 years for the existing, well-known and well-respected, State-appointed Senators to completely leave politics, or about FDR's time of 1943 -- about the time our demise began in earnest)
Vox Day agrees that a blend of Monarchy (The President), Aristocracy (The State-appointed Senators prior to the 17th Amendment), and Democracy (The House of Representatives) was the intent of the Founding Fathers, each being a check and balance against the power of the other, should have provided the best government possible, but instead has turned into the worst aspects of each.
Nowadays, the President is just a dictator who strips innocent people naked for the privledge to fly in a plane or orders troops into Waco to destroy an innocent Christian religion; the Senate is an aristocratic dictator elite who protects its banker friends who steal the populace blind, and the House is a democratic mob who gives Bread and Circuses to the welfare masses.
The critical item Vox Day left off was the fact that, with the passage of the 17th Amendment, the Senate "Aristocracy of the States" was abolished in favor of more "Democracy of the People".
From 1789 to 1913, the Founder's theories did work, turning America into the most powerful, most prosperous, and most free nation on Earth.
(There is also the creation of a powerful "New Power" in history, with the invention of the TV, radio, and much improved printing presses, mostly in the hands of a small Jewish aristocracy, which created a Propaganda Power over the three branches of government)
Yet, since the 17th Amendment, the Checks and Balances are unchecked and unbalanced.
The one critical item Henry Lamb left off his well-crafted article is, "How do we reverse the damage?"
Senators will not propose a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate the method they obtained and keep their jobs. Senate-Whores are not that patriotic!!!
These Progressives do not have to follow a defanged Constitution today with no State-based "Checks and Balances", so why bother to change it back to the way the Founders intended and shackle themselves to the Constitution?
Progressives worked so hard to get the 17th passed in the first place, exactly because it was getting in their way of "Totalitarianism : Progressive-Style."
So I ask again, "How do we reverse direction?"
State-Appointed Candidates for Senate
We reverse direction by demanding that our States step up to the plate and propose Constitutionally-minded Statesmen to run in the general elections against the candidates of the Republicans and the Democrats.
This State-backed candidate will not have to fund raise, so he will only be beholding to the State and to the citizens of the State.
This State-backed candidate will not direct a traditional dirty-politics campaign, but instead, will be above the fray and direct a public affairs education campaign about the need for a repeal of the 17th, which of course he will propose as soon as he becomes elected.
This State-backed candidate will meet any opposer who says that freedoms will be lost by saying, "So. How's that working out for you now?"
The key to restoring lost freedoms
-- by Henry Lamb
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.
The creators of our government knew well that should the new federal government go unchecked, in time it would become as tyrannical as King George III. This is precisely why the founders gave the Senate to the state legislatures. The people elected representatives; the state legislatures chose their own senators. With the states in control of the Senate, the founders gave the Senate the responsibility of approving all executive appointments to the Cabinet and to the federal bench. The Senate alone was given the responsibility of approving all international treaties. The Senate – chosen by state legislatures – was given the responsibility to approve all laws enacted by the House of Representatives.
These extraordinary men who created the United States of America insisted that the states have a decisive voice in the federal government. The Senate – chosen by state legislatures – was the balance that restrained the federal government from becoming the tyrant the founders feared.
The Progressive movement saw this restraint on federal power as an impediment to their goals and convinced the electorate that it would be more democratic to allow the people to elect senators. In 1913, when the 17th Amendment was ratified, the states were kicked out of the federal government they created.
The first argument against repealing the 17th Amendment is often the same argument used to get the amendment ratified in the first place: Progressives said it is more democratic for the people to elect their senators than to have state legislatures choose the senators.
Two questions must be confronted: Exactly how is democracy diminished if the people elect the state legislatures that choose the senators? The second question requires some deep soul searching by anyone who opposes repealing the 17th Amendment. Opponents must ask: Am I better qualified to determine how government should be structured than George Washington, Ben Franklin, James Madison, Roger Sherman and the other great men who wrote the Constitution?
The founders debated extensively the virtues of a Senate elected by the people, or a Senate elected by the state legislatures. The founders decided a Senate chosen by state legislatures would have both the power and motivation to restrain the federal government.
Those who oppose repealing the 17th Amendment must believe that they know better how to build a government than did the founders, and that the federal government needs no restraint.
The Senate is a powerful governmental body. It can block any legislation, any treaty, any executive appointment. For whom is this power dispensed? To whom is this power accountable? Senators are responsive and responsible to ... the people who provide the funding they need to fool the people who actually vote.
It's hard enough to get the attention of a representative, who answers to about 650,000 people in a district. Try getting through to a senator, who in California represents about 34 million people. Senators have to have enough money to present a professionally produced image as a good politician. Funding of this magnitude comes from labor unions, lobbyists and fat-cats. To test this theory, use the Freedom of Information Act to secure the phone and e-mail records of your U.S. senators, and see whose phone calls and e-mails they answer.
Senators spend far too much of their time fundraising. Were senators to be elected by state legislatures – as the original Constitution required – they would not need to spend any time chasing money; they could devote all their time to reading the 2,000-page bills that are becoming more commonplace. They could spend more time discussing with their state legislators how these monstrous bills might impact the state and the state's citizens. They could put the brakes on an out-of-control federal government.
For all the talk about limited government, the 10th Amendment, and the 17th Amendment, progressives, and much of the media, ridicule the idea the founders thought to be absolutely critical to the structure of a self-correcting government. Conservatives, who privately tell their friends that the 17th Amendment should be repealed, are reluctant to say publicly what they say privately, for fear of ridicule and condescension by the likes of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann.
Until the 17th Amendment is repealed, and state governments are re-empowered to put the brakes on a run-away federal government, expect the government to continue expanding its abuse of power. Expect the agencies of government to continue to legislate by regulation. Expect judicial appointments of progressives who agree that the federal government should have no limits on its power.
Not until the 17th Amendment is repealed, and the states are given back their seat at the federal table, can we begin to return to the republic our founders created, and begin to restore the freedoms that have been lost.
Article located at: