Thursday, September 9, 2010

The Seventeenth Amendment

Article I
Section 2:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States…”
Section 3:
“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.”

It seems rather simplistic in its scope, and maybe that’s why it was so easily overcome, but our Founding Fathers were genius in their ability to protect us from tyranny.
They weren’t however able to protect us from evil and designing men who do, and will have intentions to overthrow the Republic.

The way the Constitution is set up we have two houses of Congress, one house, the House of Representatives, was designed to represent the people as individuals; representation is based on population, so a census is taken each decade to establish the number of Representatives from each state; the bigger the state, the more representation.

The second house, the Senate was designed to represent each state as a whole; states were to be equal in the eyes of the Federal government, so two and only two Senators from each state. These Senators were to be chosen by the state legislatures, not by popular vote. They were representing the states as a whole, and the state was to choose who to send; the Founder’s even had the crazy idea that the Senators would be well respected men with varying backgrounds and varying expertise; in other words, people who would represent the State with dignity and knowledge.

James Madison, writing to Thomas Jefferson said “The Senate will represent the States in their political capacity, the other House will represent the people OF the states in their INDIVIDUAL capacity” (emphasis mine).
They didn’t want the rights of individuals and states to be subject to the whims of popular opinion.

Enter the Seventeenth Amendment, ratified February 3, 1913.

The United States Senate was NEVER intended to be a mini House of Representatives; there is good reason to have the state choose the Senators.

Think about all of the unfunded mandates that have been dumped on the States--take no Child Left Behind for example.
NCLB dictates, unconstitutionally I might add, that the state has to meet certain benchmarks and standards, but provides little to no funding to accomplish that goal.
Take Obamacare as another example.
With either of these mandates, if the Senators had been subject to recall, when their state objected to the mandate the Senator would vote how the STATE wanted him or her to vote, not along party lines, and not at the whim of special interests.
The Patriot Act
The Real ID (act)
I think you get the picture.
If our Senators had been subject to the STATE, it’s a VERY good chance none of these unconstitutional bills would have passed.

The Seventeenth Amendment took away the voice of the state; left the state to flounder at the whim of the Federal government.
Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) pointed out that “Ever since the safeguard of State legislatures electing U.S. Senators was removed by the 17th Amendment in 1913, there has been no check or balance on the Federal power grab for the last 97 years.”
He’s absolutely right!

In 1913 Woodrow Wilson, leader of what is known as the “Progressive Era” saw the Constitution as old and cumbersome, in need of reform. Using the term “Democracy” which is nothing more than mob rule, something deliberately shunned by our Founding Fathers, the Progressives pushed for “democratically elected Senators”; using the approved method of amending the Constitution, the Seventeenth was passed on April 8th 1913.

Wilson doesn’t get all the credit however; as early as 1826 efforts were afoot to undermine the Constitution, and by the early 1900’s, Oregon had begun electing Senators by direct election, in DIRECT opposition to the Constitution, followed by Nebraska.

William Randolph Hearst, another Progressive, used his magazine “Cosmopolitan”, a general interest magazine at the time, to push for direct elections, reaching around 100,000 readers.

The cry for “democracy” was heard and felt; when the Seventeenth was ratified our Constitutional Republic took a giant step backwards towards Democracy, removing one genius roadblock the Federal government had to go through to step on the rights of the states.
Money is always the root of evil, and the Seventeenth removed a final hurdle to the people being able to vote themselves more money from the treasury--Bastiat calls this “Legalized Plunder”, but that’s another post.

Repeal must be discussed; must become a bigger issue if we are to regain Constitutional integrity.
It won’t be easy, “democratic” is a term that is bandied about, wrong as it may be; we need to help people understand we don’t HAVE a Democracy, we have a Constitutional Republic; we must use the correct terms if we are to gain ground in the battle for the Restoration of the Constitution.
Let it start with us.


mommyx12 said...

interesting. You are right. It does start with us. And hopefully November we will all find our senses!!

Tom Miller said...

Very well said! Our forefathers did NOT set up our constitutional republic as a democracy, and for very good reasons.

The word democracy is not mentioned once in our founding documents, for good reason. But, democracy is one of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto. Democracy is essential to herd mentality and the people voting in the results of propaganda. Thus democracy is essential to Marxism while being toxic and destructive of our republic and our God-given rights.

Most Americans are oblivious and brainwashed as to the difference between democracy and our republic. True democracy lets both the people and govt vote away our God-given rights which are not rights granted by govt nor granted by We the People.