Stinging Press Release for Senators Rockefeller and Snow

Hat tip: Dave of the MVCA

Press Release Source: Center for Science and Public Policy

British Lord Stings Senators Rockefeller and Snowe: 'Uphold Free Speech or Resign' Monday December 18, 9:58 am ET

WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 /PRNewswire/ -- Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, has sent an open letter to Senators Rockefeller (D-WV) and Snowe (R-Maine) in response to their recent open letter telling the CEO of ExxonMobil to cease funding climate-skeptic scientists.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf

Lord Monckton, former policy adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, writes: "You defy every tenet of democracy when you invite ExxonMobil to deny itself the right to provide information to 'senior elected and appointed government officials' who disagree with your opinion."

In what The Charleston (WV) Daily Mail has called "an intemperate attempt to squelch debate with a hint of political consequences," Senators Rockefeller and Snowe released an open letter dated October 30 to ExxonMobil CEO, Rex Tillerson, insisting he end Exxon's funding of a "climate change denial campaign." The Senators labeled scientists with whom they disagree as "deniers," a term usually directed at "Holocaust deniers." Some voices on the political left have called for the arrest and prosecution of skeptical scientists. The British Foreign Secretary has said skeptics should be treated like advocates of Islamic terror and must be denied access to the media.

Responds Lord Monckton, "Sceptics and those who have the courage to support them are actually helpful in getting the science right. They do not, as you improperly suggest, 'obfuscate' the issue: they assist in clarifying it by challenging weaknesses in the 'consensus' argument and they compel necessary corrections ... "

Lord Monckton's Churchillian reproof continues, "You acknowledge the effectiveness of the climate sceptics. In so doing, you pay a compliment to the courage of those free-thinking scientists who continue to research climate change independently despite the likelihood of refusal of publication in journals that have taken preconceived positions; the hate mail and vilification from ignorant environmentalists; and the threat of loss of tenure in institutions of learning which no longer make any pretence to uphold or cherish academic freedom."

Of Britain's Royal Society, a State-funded scientific body which, like the Senators, has publicly leaned on ExxonMobil, Lord Monckton said, "The Society's long-standing funding by taxpayers does not ensure any greater purity of motive or rigour of thought than industrial funding of scientists who dare to question whether 'climate change' will do any harm."

To the Senators' comparison of ExxonMobil's funding of climate sceptics with tobacco-industry funding of research denying the link between smoking and lung cancer, Lord Monckton counters, "Your comparison of Exxon's funding of sceptical scientists and groups with the former antics of the tobacco industry is unjustifiable and unworthy of any credible elected representatives. Either withdraw that monstrous comparison forthwith, or resign so as not to pollute the office you hold."

Concludes Lord Monckton, "I challenge you to withdraw or resign because your letter is the latest in what appears to be an internationally-coordinated series of maladroit and malevolent attempts to silence the voices of scientists and others who have sound grounds, rooted firmly in the peer- reviewed scientific literature, to question what you would have us believe is the unanimous agreement of scientists worldwide that global warming will lead to what you excitedly but unjustifiably call 'disastrous' and 'calamitous' consequences."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Center for Science and Public Policy

Comment: This demonstrates the nonpartisan nature of the 17th Amendment issue: it does not matter what party a senator belongs to, most all have strong ties to special interest groups.

One of the consequences of the 17th Amendment has been that the length of tenure among senators has increased significantly.[1] As a result the number of special interest contacts of each has grown. And as we have witnessed repeatedly, special interest manipulate our Government and the Constitution. This global warming business represents the same.

The evidence is clearly overwhelming that the idea of humans causing global warming is ludicrous, yet with a significant amount of data available refuting this claim, these two senators would stoop to new depths by attempting to strong arm Exxon. This is beneath the dignity of the office. Yet who are they beholding to; their state or special interests? Well I would affirm definitively they are beholding to the special interests. Jay Rockefeller has been in office for 21 years (1985-2006); and Olympia Snow has been in the Senate for 11 years (1995-2006), plus in the House for 16 years (1979-1995) prior to being in the Senate. Could representatives remain that long in Washington and not be fused to special interest groups? My belief is they can’t.

Many would say that this clearly demonstrates the need for term limits. I would disagree. We have found in Ohio that term limits doing nothing to limit special interest influence or for that matter career politicians. Besides, if a person is of value to the citizenry, then they should remain in office.

Nevertheless the Senate is different. The Senate, as designed by the founding fathers, was to be the body in government that represented the States, not the people. This was to ensure authority was divided equally between the state and national governments. Unfortunately because the 17th Amendment, more power resides in Washington, on K Street, than it does in the States. If we were to place term limits on Senators, the unbalance nature would remain because the State would still not be represented.

However, if the 17th Amendment was repealed then the balance of power would equalize, and special interests would be reduced significantly. When you look at the issue from this point of view, this issue should be nonpartisan because the unbridled power of the Senate affects all Americans, not just democrats or republicans. Its time we restored the balance of power in our government and remove it from the hands of special interest groups.
__________________________________________________

[1] Todd J Zywicki; Senators and Special Interests: A Public Choice Analysis of the Seventh Amendment; Oregon Law Review; Vol. 73; 1994.

Repeal the 17th Amendment, please! by Crush Liberalism

There is a very good post highlighting the need to repeal the 17th Amendment in light of Florida’s Senator Nelson recent trip to Syria, at the weblog Crush Liberalism.

Check it out here.

Senator Nelson, Narcissist At Large

White House says Senate visits to Syria could hinder Mideast progress; The Associated Press; Thursday, December 14, 2006.

The AP reports that “The White House said Thursday that Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson's trip to Syria gave undue legitimacy to a government that is thwarting democratic reform in the Middle East. Nelson emerged from a meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus on Wednesday, saying Assad was willing to help control the Iraq-Syrian border. The Florida Democrat said he viewed Assad's remarks as "a crack in the door for discussions to continue. I approach this with realism, not optimism."

"White House press secretary Tony Snow said the trip by Nelson, a member of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, and future visits to Syria expected by Sens. John Kerry and Christopher Dodd, bothDemocrats, and Arlen Specter, a Republican, send an unhelpful, mixed message to the Syrians. "We want to make sure that they understand that just because they have visitors does not mean that the position of the United States government has changed," Snow said. The United States has limited diplomatic ties with Syria because of its support of Hezbollah and Hamas, which the United States considers terrorist organizations.”

Comment: Senator Nelson's trip undermines the United States at a critical time. Our nation is at war and while we can debate the objectives, staying united is paramount. All this does is aid the enemy with propaganda.

What are the issues between Syria and the State of Florida, the state Nelson represents? The obvious answer is none. Senator Nelson represents Florida, not the United States of America. This is why we elect a president and hold senate confirmation hearings on the selection of a Secretary of State. It is clear from the Constitution that the role of foreign policy is to be conducted by the Executive Branch, not the Legislative.

If the 17th Amendment was removed and the State's rightful authority was re-established we would not have to witness these publicity narcissists, like Nelson, Specter, Dodd, Kerry, and Kennedy, planting their selves into our national foreign policy strategy.

Appointed Senators [A history lesson]

Free Republic has a short discussion concerning the 17th Amendment and the appointment of Senators by governors. It’s worth a look.

Wrap-up of 17th Amendment Web Postings 12-Dec-06

A quick wrap-up of some articles I found surfing on the web. Dave Oatney is still going strong highlighting the issue.

AL GORE WEIGHS IN
By usclarry(usclarry) The 17th Amendment. This is the amendment that provided for the popular election of US Senators. The growth of the federal government and the weakening of state governments can be traced back to this event. Since the ratification of the ...
Southern California View From The Right - http://socalviewsfromtheright.blogspot.com/index.html

Bill Frist said more than he bargained for
By Dave Oatney In light of my recent comments on this weblog regarding the 17th Amendment and the problems with the direct election of US Senators, there was one small portion of the speech that really stuck out: “Speaking to the Convention, ...
The World According to Oatney - http://oatneyworld.blogspot.com

Recent Web Postings on the 17th

Here is a wrap up of some recent articles found concerning the 17th Amendment. Most of the links are from Dave Oatney’s posting on the web site “whereIstand.” Mr. Oatney commented on blogger God's Not Done With Me Yet’s response to Baseball Cranks’ defense of the 17th Amendment and he starts to take off from there.

It good to see an increase in the number of posting on the subject of the 17th Amendment, however I think much of the interest can be attributed to Neal Boortz. Mr. Boortz is a big advocate of the repeal.


Gore - "Iraq biggest mistake in the history of USA"
By Patrick Joubert Conlon
The 17th Amendment. This is the amendment that provided for the popular election of US Senators. The growth of the federal government and the weakening of state governments can be traced back to this event. Since the ratification of the ...Born Again Redneck - http://bornagainredneck.blogspot.com

Bringing Statesmanship back to the US Senate
By Dave Oatney
Yesterday I talked about the need to repeal the 17th Amendment and return to the original intention of the framers of the Constitution and allow federal Senators to appointed by State legislators. In addition to the reasons I discussed ...The World According to Oatney - http://oatneyworld.blogspot.com

Why We Are Better Off Without the 17th Amendment
I get blank stares from people who don't understand the concept. Adam is right on the money that the 17th Amendment has been an absolute and utter failure. We need something we are not going to get in this country and that is a thor...Smoky Mountain Dew - http://www.whereistand.com/oatney/

On Repeal
David Oatney has an excellent post today on the 17th Amendment, the amendment that put the election of US Senators to a vote of people of the states rather than the state legislatures:. The most devastating side-effect of the popular ...Volunteer Voters - http://www.news2wkrn.com/vv/

Restore the Republic-repeal the 17th Amendment
By Dave Oatney
Adam is right on the money that the 17th Amendment has been an absolute and utter failure. We need something we are not going to get in this country and that is a thorough national debate on whether the direct election of Senators has a ...The World According to Oatney - http://oatneyworld.blogspot.com

17th Amendment - - Time to Repeal

Don't Get Me Started: 17th Amendment -- Time to Repeal; by By Andrew C. ‘’Andy’’ Hefty; The Standard; 29 November 2006.

Repealing the election of senators will also diminish the egocentric, self-centered, camera hogs when it comes time for cabinet and judicial confirmations. Imagine how quickly things will get done. No more grandstanding for "the folks back home"; just productivity.

Read the whole article here.

Comment: The author makes a couple of good points and at the heart of each is accountability. Senators generally side step accountability because they are afforded the luxury of an election every six years. The American people would certainly regain a measure of accountability of we return to the Constitution as framed by Adams and Madison.

Bootz Makes Impact on One Man to Consider 17th Amendment

Blogger Dave Stone heard Neil Bootz discuss the problems with the 17th Amendment causing him to delve deeper in to the issue. Good for Neil! This is what’s needed; a little national recognition and convincing people one person at a time. Hopefully Dave begins to persuade other people!

Forbes May Detest Millionaires in Government

I came across this article first on Forbes and on SolidarityEconomics weblog, which is Marxist oriented. I found it very strange that this would be posted on Forbes.

Meet Senator Millionaire by Jessica Holzer, Forbes

The wealth of the incoming class will hardly raise eyebrows in the Senate, where about half of the current 100 members are also millionaires and the average net worth is $8.9 million, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington. By contrast, less than 1% of the U.S. population has a net worth of $1 million or more.

Though millionaires are far more common today thanks to inflation, lots of members in the 19th century Senate would have been multimillionaires in today’s dollars, insists Ritchie. Back in 1900, $100,000 was roughly equivalent to $1 million today.

So glaring was the affluence of the turn-of-the century Senate that it prompted a series of muckraking articles in 1906 called the “The Treason of the Senate.” That led to the 17th Amendment, which instituted the direct election of senators in 1913. Previously, they were chosen by state legislatures.

Read the rest here.

Comment: Holzer’s understanding of the movement to enact the 17th Amendment is slightly skewed, yet is a very common belief. The general belief is that the populist movement, fueled by the corruption in the Senate, was the driving force behind the movement. Yet recent research has determined that it was the special interest groups that were looking for more access to federal funds and to break the monopoly held by older states over the newly formed western states was the impetus for the movement.[1] It was only coincidental that the populist movement came along during the time the amendment was enacted. As we have seen in the last hundreds years special interest and greater rates of taxation have grown rapidly since the enacting of the 17th Amendment.

Troubling for me is the lack of honest investigation on the part of the left. The left looks upon the 17th Amendment as a great victory for the “people,” yet in actually it has further enslaved them. Special interest groups have more power and the people less. If the left were truly concerned for the people they would be working diligently to remove the 17th Amendment and restore the States place in the Federal government.

My other concern with Holzer’s article stems from her class based view of the Senate, while scornfully observing of the number of millionaires. This is very typical leftist harangue, but again what I found interesting is that a capitalist magazine like Forbes would print this story. Every citizen has right to run for elected office, no matter the economic status. And as history has demonstrated the rich are actually better suited to serve because they most often have a solid education and being free from want they can devote more time and energy to the community. But again, there is nothing set in stone one way or the other, only that all should the opportunity to run. Yet it is up to the citizen to take the time and learn about the candidate, hopefully make the right choice for the best candidate.

[1] Todd Zywicki, Beyond The Shell and Husk Of History: The History Of The Seventeenth Amendment and Its Implications For Current Reform; Cleveland State Law Review; 1997