Discussion Arising from OKC 2nd Amendment Rally

[mugsy]

At yesterday's 2A rally in OKC, Moore's State Senator, Sen Dahm, briefly discussed that there are three "levels" of government - Federal, State, and the People (local government is nothing more than the creation and legal extension of State government). He was correct and I commend him for reminding us that there is more than Washington D.C. - even though it has a key, albeit limited and enumerated role.

However, the forum was not right for a more extended discussion so here's my two cents:

- The Constitution was designed with a mechanism for the States to directly influence Federal politics - the U.S. Senate. The original language of the Constitution called for Senators to be elected by the legislatures of their respective States. The Senate would be the place where the States could influence what Washington did. The House, of course, was for the people's direct influence, and the Presidency was for the people to indirectly select/influence.

In 1913 the 17th Amendment was ratified in an effort to "bring government closer to the people". It also had the secondary effect of dealing a body blow to the Federal system our Founder's created and counted upon to keep both States and Federal government in balance Many of you will note that much of the discussion we have on this board is about Federal over-reach, something that would be checked by a significant State influence in Washington - it is almost like the Founding Fathers actually thought through their governing structure and processes before instituting them.

I believe that it would be in the national interest of the U.S. as a whole for the original mechanism and balance of the Constitution to be restored - and I thus feel the 17th Amendment should be repealed. Unlike our Liberal fellow-citizens, I also respect Constitutional processes so the only way to accomplish this is to follow the amendment process to repeal.

Please respond to my unscientific straw poll and add any comments you may have.

 

[dutchwrangler]

As it was the States that created the central government, the States provided themselves with the mechanism to have their voice heard via the Senate. The people had the House. Now the people have the Senate & House, the States are voiceless. All that the States have is the Tenth Amendment.

By reinstituting the Senate back to the original design, local politics becomes more important. The people's voice is actually increased. I support the repeal of the 17th Amendment.

 

[flybeech]

I couldn't agree with you more that the 17th Amendment should be repealed. You clearly stated exactly why the Founding Fathers first struggled with Senate selection and why they decided the sovereign States should have the power to select the Senators, who's job it was to look out for the rights of their state.

The Progressives that gave us the income tax, the IRS and private Federal Reserve Bank to create money from thin air, eventually backed with nothing, at interest knew that the best way to shift power to the central government and destroy the 10th Amendment was to make Senators into a smaller-body of Congressmen, thereby eliminating the sovereign State at the Federal legislative table.

Seeing the initial results of your poll is exciting, since it suggests an awareness of the people on this forum just how evil and destructive to the Federation the 17th Amendment really is. Like anti-freeze tastes sweet to puppies, the idea of a selecting Senators by popular election sounds great...power to the people...when the sweet coating merely masks the bitter poison hidden within.

Thank you for your insightful poll.

 

[SMS]

Can anyone elaborate, with facts not platitudes, how repealing the 17th would strengthen the State's position in the Federal system?

Elected by the State Legislature, which is elected by the people of an individual state vs. directly elected by the people of an individual state....how is one more Fed friendly than the other?

 

[Shadowrider]

Can anyone elaborate, with facts not platitudes, how repealing the 17th would strengthen the State's position in the Federal system?

Elected by the State Legislature, which is elected by the people of an individual state vs. directly elected by the people of an individual state....how is one more Fed friendly than the other?

I don't know how much difference there really is but, with the Senate as originally setup you had more "representation" in the context of a republic. With the House being directly elected that's the democracy side of the coin. Remember that there was a fierce fight over our government being a democracy or a republic. I think this was a compromise to satiate the two sides. Now the only real difference left from the original form of the Senate is the disparity of representation, that part is still there. Otherwise I don't see much difference between the House.

 

[rawhide]

Can anyone elaborate, with facts not platitudes, how repealing the 17th would strengthen the State's position in the Federal system?

Elected by the State Legislature, which is elected by the people of an individual state vs. directly elected by the people of an individual state....how is one more Fed friendly than the other?

Direct election of Senators increased influence peddling and campaign support by out of state parties. Senators elected by the legislature should be more state friendly because they are more likely to be held accountable by the legislature of the state they represent.

 

[SMS]

Direct election of Senators increased influence peddling and campaign support by out of state parties. Senators elected by the legislature should be more state friendly because they are more likely to be held accountable by the legislature of the state they represent.

Good point. I can see that.

 

[53convert]

I have been talking this for years.
When the senator was either elected by the state house or appointed by the governor there was no doubt theyrepresented the STATE.
When we won't to direct election by the people they lost the need to represent the state, primarily because they were always running for reelection by the people.
The house was designed to represent the people
Thesenate to represent the state against both the fed govt. and the people. There was no welfare state when the states could override the house. Now.............l.
Harry reed, and John McCain are but two (2) examples of this process.

 

[farmerbyron]

Sound logic. But how are you going to sell a repeal of the 17th amendment when many of our people and govt. can't even determine the intent of the 2nd?

I think you are definitely on to something but the Feds won't be giving up their power willingly and the electorate is too stupid to see a repeal would enhance their representation.

 

[flybeech]

Perhaps my view is a bit simplistic, but before the 17th, the Framers wanted to ensure the balance of power and safeguard the Republic of sovereign states. Congress was intentionally intended to be directly elected by the people, with districts expanding as each one reached 30,000. All the ideas would emerge from Congress and sent to the Senate, who's main intent was to ensure the sovereignty of the State was protected, because the state was in a sense, a living person.

Direct election of the Senate ensured that the sovereign state was no longer represented, allowing an effective shift of power from the State as an autonomous entity represented in the Senate, to the direct election allowing a march toward central control and en end of the Tenth Amendment. In my view, 1913 was a particularly bad year for the Federation with the creation of the private Federal Reserve Bank, the establishment of the Federal income tax and creation of the IRS as the collection agency for the private Federal Reserve Bank and of course, the Federal Reserve Act, which surrendered all monetary matters to private bankers allowed to create money from thin air, backed with nothing, at interest and accountable to no one.