A New Beginning
“A Republic … if you can keep it.” Those words, attributed to Benjamin Franklin during the evening hours of September 17, 1787, spoke into being a rich history of our nation, its founding and the establishment of our Constitution as the rule of law. The Constitution was written, debated, edited and debated further until a consensus of the Constitutional Convention was reached. In his closing speech, Benjamin Franklin acknowledged, “I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution.” This republic afforded the people of the various sovereign states representation on an equal basis based on the population, these are our representatives in Congress. The states were given an equal say in states matters in the Senate. Together the Representatives and Senators would comprise the legislative branch of our government that would direct the laws and policy of these United States.
Order Out of Chaos
Much confusion abounded during the time of the convention, bickering among the participants was considerable. However, one item echoed throughout the process that today most folks would deride as folly. During the final debates, Mr. Elbridge Gerry expressed the concern that the Constitution as it was written would lead to a civil war because it didn’t adequately protect republicanism. It was argued that in his home state of Massachusetts, there were two political parties, one devoted to Democracy, “the worst thought of all political evils” and the extreme opposite. Without a guarantee that the Constitution would protect the nation against such extremes, he refused to sign and subsequently argued against ratification because of the lack of a bill of rights that limited the power of the government.
The republic that was formed allowed each state to have 2 senators that were selected by the various states to ensure the government would never impinge upon the sovereignty of the individual states. This bi-level system assured that the states acting in concert could not impose legislation on the country as a whole without the consent that comes from the people through their representatives. The representatives and senators thus each are required to produce legislation and have it approved through both houses assuring the needs of the people are met and the sovereignty of the states is ensured.
States’ Rights Dealt Death Blow
The 17th Amendment, if doing nothing else, brought about the demise of states rights and effectively neutered the republic. When the Senate passed the amendment on June 12, 1911, they were voting for themselves the ability to be elected by popular vote and whether knowingly or not, they changed the face of the country. A senator elected by the people, will ultimately do the will of the people, or at very least the will of the people who ensure their continued re-election. This holds true for appointed senators as well. Those appointed senators would be loyal to the state legislature. The move from the states’ legislature selecting senators to the people removed the loyalty to the state and put it squarely in the lap of the people. The republic that Ben Franklin announced that historic day in 1787 had been lobotomized.
The Arguments
There are several arguments for the repeal of the 17th Amendment:
-
It removed states’ representation from the federal government and essentially abolished state sovereignty and the states no longer have a representative voice in the legislature.
-
It removed the balance from the legislative branch of government. A congress made up of elected officials from the enumerated people, plus two from each state essentially gives the people additional representation greater than the enumerated representation allowed by the constitution.
-
Power has become centralized in Washington. A senate without loyalty to the individual states takes away the rights of individual states to pass any meaningful legislation, and causes the legislative power to reside in the federal government.
-
It has increased partisanship in government. Political parties exist to give a stronger voice to like-minded individuals. Since individuals belong to political parties, their will is pressed in the senate as well as the house. The states on the other hand, do not belong to political parties and usually consist of a varied mix of several political views.
-
The Senate is now directly responsible to the people. This means that if they don’t do the will of the people, they can be replaced. While this sounds good, the senate was never designed to do the will of the people. It was designed to do the will of the states. This effectively removed whatever protections the 10th Amendment provided.
The Repeal
In the political climate today, the likelihood of a repeal of the 17th Amendment is remote. There have been attempts to do so in the past, but they failed due to obvious reasons. As recently as August 2009, there were bipartisan attempts to amend the 17th to prevent the appointment of senators by state governors.
Constitutionally we must live within the law, and when those laws seem unjust or no longer are appropriate, it is the duty of the people to change those laws. The expansion of the federal government has put us on the edge of a crevasse that will soon give way to a calamitous action. We must act with purpose to restore the proper balance to a union of nation/states. Each state being sovereign, each person being secure in their liberty and the strength of the nation improved through a cooperative federal government instead of the bastardized monstrosity we are currently relegated to deal with.
Friday, 5. February 2010
Please listen to:
Judge Andrew Napolitano on Nullification
Friday, 5. February 2010
Very good post: I think it is interesting that the 17th Amendment was in 1911. Very close to 1913 when the Federal Reserve was established. A lot of policies and stuff happened in that time period to erode the U.S. Constitution and lead us down the path toward socialism.
Saturday, 6. February 2010
Jackie,
The 17th Amendment passed in The Senate on June 12, 1911; and in The House of Representatives on May 13, 1912, however, it was officially ratified by the states on April 8, 1913.
Yes, in 1913, under The Woodrow Wilson administration, The 16th and 17th Amendments were ratified, and The Federal Reserve was established. It was a Progressive dream, and a very bad year for state sovereignty. The states must have been terribly naive, or seriously misled, to ratify those two amendments.
Sunday, 7. February 2010
When I think of the two biggest, Constitutional blows, to the sovereignty of the states, I think of The 16th, and The 17th Amendments…
You did a fine job of explaining The 17th Amendment; but unlike you, I don’t believe the chances of repealing it, are as remote as they have been in the past… As long as I can remember, state’s rights, and state sovereignty, have not been more of a public discussion then they are today. I don’t think it would be really hard to get a Constitutional Convention to begin the process, but getting Congress to approve, may indeed, be the challenge.
Whenever I hear about repeal, and state sovereignty, most people tend to bring up The 17th Amendment… I happen to believe, The 16th Amendment, is the worse of the two evils… While The 17th is critical to putting a barrier between the people of the states, and the federal government, The 16th Amendment allows the federal government to directly tax the people’s income, from every state; consolidating these tax-revenues into the hands of a central authority, in Washington D.C. … and as we have seen, this money is being used for purposes never before imagined, and against the will of a great majority of the citizens.
I believe a new system of taxation needs to be instituted; administered at state-level; and tax-revenues, remitted to the federal government, by each state, according to the census of each state. (Taxation, directly equal to our Congressional representation)
If we could repeal The Sixteenth Amendment, do away with The IRS, and get some sort of system in place, like I described above, I believe, we could certainly regain much of our state sovereignty… while still working to repeal The 17th Amendment. If we could get both repealed, in one Constitutional Convention, that would be outstanding!
Sunday, 7. February 2010
The state of Texas (with no state income tax) is a good example of how low taxation is actually better for the economy. People in Washington just cannot comprehend the fact that when they over tax the rich and businesses (in order to re-distribute wealth), they are actually making the whole nation poorer. In order for businesses to stay in business they have to raise the prices of their products or services and they hire less people.
Sunday, 7. February 2010
Elbridge Gerry was truly one the good ones; an early Republican, who insisted on extra Constitutional assurances, from our new Federal Government.
Sadly, barely 4 years after ratification, the worse form of evils did emerge, and that was the inception of political parties, when Hamilton formed The Federalist Party; in response, Jefferson formed The Democrat-Republican Party, one year later. In my opinion, political parties, do represent a terrible (quasi) form of pure democracy… they are in perpetual civil war; battling over the same government; and often seeking a majority, in order to usurp the rights of their opposition. Hardly what our founders had in mind, at time of ratification. I hold Hamilton solely responsible, as he appeared to be the manipulative one who was seeking to push our new system of governance, closer and closer, to a monarchy.
As long as we have organized, political parties, I see little hope in national unity again. I wish we could all reject party affiliations, and work toward getting back to how our founders intended it to be, according to The Constitution.
–
Please also see:
Jefferson on the state of party politics
Monday, 8. February 2010
Jackie,
I think they do comprehend… I would find it very hard to believe, top officials, in our government, do not have access to the best economists in our country.
Sadly, what me and you would think of as common-sense, they would disregard in the name of political-realities. Think about it: if they don’t perpetuate the class-warfare, and beat up on the rich, then who else can they blame when trying to push through their ill-fated, and completely, ideological, policies? This is yet, another example of partisan-politics! Instead of one party, or no parties, following one Constitution, they need to create platforms, and scapegoats, in order to push through “their agendas.”
Monday, 8. February 2010
I liken the whole economic thing in Washington to the whole global warming thing. With global warming you have some scientists who believe that man is causing global warming with carbon emissions and that we have to do something about it or the earth is doomed. However, you have 1000s of scientists who know this to be wrong and that the earth temperatures just change over time.
With economics in government, you have these economists in D.C. claiming that government has to solve the economic crisis by expanding credit and applying Keynesian principles of economics. Then you have 1000s of economists who know better and say that you need less government intrusion, less taxes, and credit contraction.
Monday, 8. February 2010
I totally agree with your entire comment, but we know certain things to be true…
1. Without irrefutable scientific evidence, Global Warming, and all science, remains theoretical; even though the speculators and alarmists will continue on with their rhetoric.
2. Governments do not exist to profit; they are mere managers of the general tax-revenues, and are hired to prudently use those tax-dollars to serve the general citizenry. Well, since governments do not produce anything, or exist to profit, they have to count on the citizens to support their very existence. Thus, every penny the government (overhead) spends, it takes away money from the (profitable) productive part of society. Therefore, common-sense dictates, the less you tax the producers in society, the more the producers will be able to spend on producing and hiring; and subsequently, sending even more tax-revenues to the government.
The most basic concept behind Keynesian Economics is, during times of recession, you need to prime the economic pump with revenue. Well, when the government, arrogantly, and presumptuously, uses the tax-payer’s money, and starts picking winners or losers, it creates an unbalanced, political, and unpredictable economy. When tax-revenues are evenly given back to the producers in society, the economy is starting from a zero-sum point, and the winners and losers are decided by the free-markets.
Either way, the financial pumps are primed, only the people who generate revenues for the economy, are the ones who have a motive to profit and compete. With lower taxation, more marketing and spending occurs; more hiring occurs; and the general population proposers, as a result.
–
Going back to political parties:
I wouldn’t be surprised if the two philosophies were divided almost evenly across party-lines; however, even if Democrats know, tax cuts are the better solution for our economic growth, they are less likely to cross party-lines and agendas, to say that. And again, political parties exist to serve (their platforms) themselves first, and the people second.
–
And going back to repeal:
This is another reason why, it is becoming a moral-imperative to do away with The 16th Amendment, once and for all; and put in place a tax system that encourages economic growth and freedom; while funding a government based on The Constitution, and what the states, and the people, consider proper and just, in funding a federal government.