Chris Dodd (D-Countrywide)

Chris Dodd (D-Countrywide): The Boring Made Dull

Note, please go to the actual weblog for all URLs contained within this article.

May not be a crook, at least in the technical sense, but circumstantial evidence is beginning to pile up. He must thank the Lord everyday that the Senate's “Ethics” committee consequences are reserved for Republicans.

Setting aside his “ Friends of Angelo” special mortgage deals, there's the tiny matter of his Irish estate.

Yup, 1 0 acres and a “cottage” possibly valued at a cool million, that Dodd has declared as between $100k and $250k.

This from a guy dodged all responsibility for Fannie and Freddie, claiming they were fundamentally sound, and helping to make the mortgage meltdown possible.

So, now that President Obama has asked you, the taxpayer, someone who's scrimped, saved, and living in a house that you can almost afford, to bail out the house flippers who drove up home prices for everyone, in return for a whole $13 dollars a week in tax relief, keep in mind that his party had a big part in creating this mess.

But you won't hear Obama criticizing Dodd, Kent Conrad, or Barney Frank. Silly boy – did you believe all of that pre election rhetoric about supporting the middle class?

Comment: Ah Mr. Dodd; one of a hundred reasons the 17th should be repealed.

Stimulus Watch: Keeping an Eye on Economic Recovery Spending

Note; this is off topic, however I thought it would be of value to the readers of this web log.

From Stimulus Watch:

StimulusWatch.org was built to help the new administration keep its pledge to invest stimulus money smartly, and to hold public officials to account for the taxpayer money they spend. We do this by allowing you, citizens around the country with local knowledge about the proposed "shovel-ready" projects in your city, to find, discuss and rate those projects. These projects are not part of the stimulus bill. They are candidates for funding by federal grant programs once the bill passes.

Dem Senator Byrd: Obama In A Power Grab

Dem Senator Byrd: Obama In A Power Grab; The Huffington Post; Stuart Whatley; February 25, 2009.

Senator Robert Byrd, the senior senator from West Virginia and the longest-serving member of the Senate, issued a press release Wednesday warning against President Obama's White House "czar" posts. In a letter to the President, Byrd expressed specific concern about the White House offices overseeing urban affairs, health care reform, and energy and climate change. The offices will be led by people not confirmed by the Senate, who will yet form and influence major policies. Byrd worries that such policies will not be subject to the required Constitutional power checks. Here is the full press release:

Washington, DC - Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., the Constitutional conscience of the Senate, has written to President Barack Obama expressing his concerns over the increasing appointments of White House "czars," and the relationship between these new White House positions and their executive branch counterparts, noting that "too often, I have seen these lines of authority and responsibility become tangled and blurred, sometimes purposely, to shield information and to obscure the decision-making process."

Why States Are Shunning AKA's "Stimulus" Money

Why States Are Shunning AKA's "Stimulus" Money; Lynn Stuter; NewsWithVeiws.Com; 24 feb 2009.

This is a very small snippet from a longer and very good article, please check it out.

On February 20, 2009, at a gathering of mayors at the White House, AKA was most empathetic, commiserating with mayors over the lack of funding, then singling out Texas mayors, telling them they could lose billions if Governor Rick Perry refused stimulus funds. AKA, however, carefully avoided mention of the federal strings and federal control attached to that money, a condition, however, that did not escape the journalist for The Dallas Morning News, Todd J. Gillman.

What needs to happen to rectify this situation, to reassert state’s rights?

State agencies must be prohibited from apply for or accepting federal discretionary grants.

The 16th and 17th Amendments to the United States Constitution must be repealed.

States must deny the federal government access to citizens or companies residing within the state for the purposes of taxation.

Federal agencies, established in direct violation of the United States Constitution, need to be challenged via the courts.

The United States of America stands on the brink of destruction at the hands of a man who has no allegiance to this country as he is not an American citizen yet sits in the Oval Office. He must be exposed and ousted before he does further damage to this country.

Shout First, Ask Questions Later: Abolish The 17th Amendment

Shout First, Ask Questions Later: Abolish The 17th Amendment

I never, ever, thought I would think that a return to the process of state senates electing federal senators (the way our Founding Father's set up the government) was a good idea, but George Will's article here changed my mind!

Heartless and Brainless: Abolish the 17th Amendment?

Heartless and Brainless: Abolish the 17th Amendment?

...Perhaps it's silly to envision repealing away voting rights that citizens of the United States have enjoyed for over a hundred years (the right to vote directly for one's representative in the Senate), but Will's point remains. The 17th amendment probably did more harm than good.

A Bama Blog: Repeal the 17th Amendment

A Bama Blog: Repeal the 17th Amendment:

...The idea that more democracy necessarily equates to more freedom is one that was rejected outright by the framers of the Constitution. We would do well to heed their warning. The Constitution was crafted not to impose majority rule, but rather to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

Sense of Events: Repeal 17th amendment? Don't stop there!

Sense of Events: Repeal 17th amendment? Don't stop there!

The 17th amendment was a terrible mistake, but not the only one encompassed in Constitutional amendments. Its immediate predecessor, the 16th, ratified in only two months before the 17th, has proved disastrous also...

Comment: Good post check it out.

Jonathan Adler; Repeal the 17th Amendment?

From Jonathan Adler at The Volokh Conspiracy:

George Will thinks it would be better to repeal the 17th Amendment than to require special elections for Senate vacancies. Has he been reading Todd Zywicki?

George Will On A Roll

From the "best and brightest" at the Harvard Political Review:

...These errors should be enough for any one column, but with Will, the hits keep on coming. For Will does not just argue against Feingold's amendment, he argues for repealing the 17th amendment itself. You see, when senators were elected by state legislatures, everything was perfect! You had Henry Clay, and Daniel Webster, and oh yes, John C. Calhoun, a man who so loved the constitutional order that Will does not understand that he wanted to nullify it. And look at what has happened since we started with that whole direct election thing: We've gotten Joe McCarthy, and Russ Feingold! Yes, John Calhoun is the senatorial ideal, but Russ Feingold is a latter-day Joe McCarthy. This from one of the "smart" conservative writers.

Will is on quite a roll. His previous column was full of falsehoods. Thankfully, today's column is only rife with misunderstanding, idiotic comparisons, and senseless longing for the good ole days of limited democracy.

Senate to Vote On DC Voting Issue

After two century wait, DC residents may get vote; By JIM ABRAMS; AP; 22 Feb 2009.

Call the nation's capital home, and for some 200 years you have paid taxes and gone to war for your country but you didn't get a vote in Congress.

Residents of the District of Columbia have chafed over their second-class status, and for nearly a decade many have displayed "taxation without representation" license plates on their cars to signal their outrage.

All that could change with key votes this week in the Senate...

Lugar calls for rethinking U.S. embargo against Cuba

Lugar calls for rethinking U.S. embargo against Cuba; USAToday; 23 Feb 2009.

The top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee says leadership changes in Cuba and the United States offer a chance to "reevaluate a complex relationship marked by misunderstanding, suspicion, and open hostility."

Sen. Richard Lugar, of Indiana, says a change is needed because the 47-year-old embargo has proved ineffective in bringing democracy to the island.

His remarks appear in the introduction to a report by his senior staffer, Carl Meacham, who traveled to Cuba in January. The report, dated Monday, is scheduled to be distributed this week to Lugar's Senate colleagues...

The Antithesis of Will's Argument

Well there had to be someone...

The Republican Party and American conservatives publicly hold democracy, the rule of the people, pretty consistently in contempt.

In contrast, note the history of consistent support for democracy and further democratization of the Constitution among progressives, opposed in all cases by conservatives, from the dawn of the 20th Century to this very day.

It’s good to know who your friends are.

Oh, and Will is wrong about this, too.

Read the whole posting here.

Comment: Hey, let's not let history have any bearing here because it might get in the way of "popular democracy."

“Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.”

Robert A. Heinlein

Ed Morrissey: The Double Irony of Will’s Column

The double irony of Will’s column; by Ed Morrissey; Hot Air; 23 February 2009.


Ed Morrissey has a nice commentary discussing George Will’s article concerning the latest in constitutional attacks by Feingold and McCain. However, there are elements in his post that demonstrate, in my humble opinion, an incomplete understanding of the formation of Congress and of the effects of the 17th Amendment.

As it was created the Senate would be controlled by “politicians,” yet still indirectly at a community level through the people and their vote for their local legislator. For some reason Americans have this strange ideal that direct popular voting is somehow a higher loadstar than votes cast by “politicians,” and Mr. Morrissey’s post reflects this sentiment. Reasonably, with the level of vote apathy in the last thirty years direct elections certainly aren't the best idea. Certainly the founders knew this when they first put forward the ideal of male sufferage.

Mr. Morrissey also misses the mark when he says, “Will runs aground when arguing against the substance of the policy.”

The very case before us makes that argument completely laughable. Are we to assume that a Senator appointed by the Illinois legislature would be somehow less prone to undue influence than one who won in a popular election? Especially if, as Will notes, the Senator remained accountable (and at risk for recall) to the legislature that appointed him? Regardless of whether the populace is “swollen by immigrants”, a public election has more sunlight by its nature than a conclave of elected officials in a state capital — or on Capitol Hill, as the Porkulus package amply demonstrated.

According to Prof. Todd Zywicki (1), he found a sharp rise in special interest influence in the US Senate resulting from the 17th amendment, so I would argue that Mr. Will’s contention is accurate. Mr. Morrissey is point is purely empirical, yet it seems to be fairly entrenched belief among many in this country that needs to be dispelled.

But without blowing out of proportion the small shortcomings I find in his post, it is great to see this issue getting the attention it truly needs.


(1) Senators and Special Interests: A Public Choice Analysis of the Seventeenth Amendment, 73 Oregon L. Rev. 1007 (1994), by Todd Zywicki

Lobbying and the US Senate

Austan Mogharabi of The Democratic Piece has an interesting commentary, Lobbying and the US Senate, concerning George Will's recent article, Sen Feingold's Constitution, which appeared last weekend in The Washington Post. It's worth reading.

On another note, but along the line of thought concerning the role of lobbyist and the senate, check out Senators and Special Interests: A Public Choice Analysis of the Seventeenth Amendment, 73 Oregon L. Rev. 1007 (1994), by Todd Zywicki, which explains the effects of special interest lobbying in the US Senate.

George Will: Repeal the 17th Amendment

Sen. Feingold's Constitution; by George F. Will; The Washington Post; February 22, 2009.

Note: Readers should go to the link above for all URLs contained within Mr. Will's WAPO article.

HT: JohnJ at the Repeal the 17th Amendment Discussion Board.

George Will brought a little national attention upon the 17th Amendment and the unintended consequence of its passage through a recent article appearing in The Washington Post last weekend. Will's article comes in response to Feingold and McCain's proposed constitutional amendment calling for the direct popular election of a vacant senate seat.

A simple apology would have sufficed. Instead, Sen. Russ Feingold has decided to follow his McCain-Feingold evisceration of the First Amendment with Feingold-McCain, more vandalism against the Constitution.

The Wisconsin Democrat, who is steeped in his state's progressive tradition, says, as would-be amenders of the Constitution often do, that he is reluctant to tamper with the document but tamper he must because the threat to the public weal is immense: Some governors have recently behaved badly in appointing people to fill U.S. Senate vacancies. Feingold's solution, of which John McCain is a co-sponsor, is to amend the 17th Amendment. It would be better to repeal it.

The Framers established election of senators by state legislators, under which system the nation got the Great Triumvirate (Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John Calhoun) and thrived. In 1913, progressives, believing that more, and more direct, democracy is always wonderful, got the 17th Amendment ratified. It stipulates popular election of senators, under which system Wisconsin has elected, among others, Joe McCarthy, as well as Feingold.
ad_icon

The 17th Amendment says that when Senate vacancies occur, "the executive authority" of the affected state "shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."

Feingold's amendment says:

"No person shall be a Senator from a State unless such person has been elected by the people thereof. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies."

Feingold says that mandating election of replacement senators is necessary to make the Senate as "responsive to the people as possible." Well. The House, directly elected and with two-year terms, was designed for responsiveness. The Senate, indirectly elected and with six-year terms, was to be more deliberative than responsive.

Furthermore, grounding the Senate in state legislatures served the structure of federalism. Giving the states an important role in determining the composition of the federal government gave the states power to resist what has happened since 1913 -- the progressive (in two senses) reduction of the states to administrative extensions of the federal government.

Severing senators from state legislatures, which could monitor and even instruct them, made them more susceptible to influence by nationally organized interest groups based in Washington. Many of those groups, who preferred one-stop shopping in Washington to currying favors in all the state capitals, campaigned for the 17th Amendment. So did urban political machines, which were then organizing an uninformed electorate swollen by immigrants. Alliances between such interests and senators led to a lengthening of the senators' tenures.

The Framers gave the three political components of the federal government (the House, Senate and presidency) different electors (the people, the state legislatures and the electoral college as originally intended) to reinforce the principle of separation of powers, by which government is checked and balanced.

Although liberals give lip service to "diversity," they often treat federalism as an annoying impediment to their drive for uniformity. Feingold, who is proud that Wisconsin is one of only four states that clearly require special elections of replacement senators in all circumstances, wants to impose Wisconsin's preference on the other 46. Yes, he acknowledges, they could each choose to pass laws like Wisconsin's, but doing this "state by state would be a long and difficult process." Pluralism is so tediously time-consuming.

Irony alert: Feingold's amendment requiring elections to fill Senate vacancies will owe any traction it gains to Senate Democrats' opposition to an election to choose a replacement for Barack Obama. That opposition led to the ongoing Blagojevich-Burris fiasco.

By restricting the financing of political advocacy, the McCain-Feingold speech-rationing law empowers the government to regulate the quantity, timing and content of political speech. Thanks to Feingold, McCain and others, the First Amendment now, in effect, reads: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech unless it really, really wants to in order to guarantee that there will be only as much speech about the government as the government considers appropriate, and at times the government approves."

Now Feingold proposes to traduce federalism and nudge the Senate still further away from the nature and function the Framers favored. He is, as the saying goes, an unapologetic progressive, but one with more and more for which to apologize.

Comment: I for one am glad to see Mr. Will write an article that centers on federalism. During the last eight years I have noticed little endorsement of federalism from him in wake of the Bush abuses, and it actually seemed to me that he was embracing centralized government at the expense of federalism.

On another note, I would point out to Republicans McCain is still McCain, an enemy of the Constitution.

State Sovereignty Resolution Update

Fellow Ohio blogger Harold Thomas, author of the weblog The Ohio Republic, is tracking the nationwide state sovereignty resolution effort. You might want to add this to your RSS reader so you can track the progress, because you know the MSM is certainly doing everything to bury this movement.

Sensenbrenner Gets the 17th Wrong

It’s time to amend the 17th Amendment; F. James Sensenbrenner; WISOPINION.COM; 19 Feb 2009.

Sometimes it's important to take a good thing and make it even better - whether that's mixing chocolate with peanut butter or updating the 17th Amendment.

Earlier this week, on Tuesday, the United States Senate Ethics Committee began investigating Senator Roland Burris, and how he came to be the individual selected to replace President Obama in the Senate.

A shadow of doubt has been cast on Senator Burris, and whether he had illegally agreed to raise money for former Governor Rod Blagojevich. I believe the Senate investigation is appropriate and the right conclusion will be drawn.

At the same time, given the recent fiascos and horse-trading we've seen regarding not only the Senate seat in Illinois, but also New York, Delaware and Colorado, we need to close the window on Senate appointments.

In Wisconsin, we're very fortunate that a state statute requires a special election to fill a vacated U.S. Senate seat. As a result, Wisconsin has never had an appointed U.S. Senator - our Senators have always been selected by the people. Other states are not as fortunate and sometimes, as we've seen this election cycle, chaos ensues.

I believe all U.S. Senators should be directly elected by the people, not selected by one person. That's why last week I joined forces with a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, to cosponsor a Constitutional Amendment that would modify the 17th Amendment by calling for the direct election of all U.S. Senators, even those filling vacancies. The Amendment lets states decide how the election should be conducted, but makes it clear that U.S. Senators must be elected by the people of their state.

As we are celebrating many presidents this week, including the births of George Washington, one of our Nation's Founding Fathers, and Abraham Lincoln, a man who wrote the words "A government of the people, by the people, for the people" in his Gettysburg Address, I can only speculate that these men would support the direct election of all U.S. senators.

-- Sensenbrenner, a Republican, represents Wisconsin's 5th Congressional District.

Comment: Representative Sensenbrenner is quite mistaken on a number of levels. First the “horse trading" goes on in every state and in every corner of politics. I am willing to bet he engaged in a certain level of “horse trading" just to become a candidate in his state republican party. This is the problem we face with the two main parties that block and prevent third party candidates, much less those candidates that garner a high degree of popular support but are not party disciples, from running openly. Truth be told, if there was one area that prevents the people from exercising their vote, it’s in the two party system.

He is also incorrect concerning a potential revision of 17th amendment that would let the “states” decide. The truth of the matter is that the people would not choose the candidate any more than they do today in regular general elections. Party insiders and special interest groups, who provide the huge sums of money, now choose Senators.

Sensenbrenner finishes his statement with a warped understanding of US history. Both Washington and Lincoln believed in the balance of power created by the founders. Washington, a founder Mr Sensenbrenner, understood full well the relationship between the states and the federal government, as he demonstrated through out his participation during the Constitutional Convention. Even during the period when Lincoln exercised what was considered the highest level of draconian federal control our nation had yet known, he never lost sight of the role and power of the state. And certainly both men knew, unlike Mr. Sensenbrenner, that our form of government is not a democracy but a republic.

Mr. Sensenbrenner, like so many in Congress, should take a course in US History and read his Constitution; you know the one he swore to uphold.

Arlen Specter Jeered by Taxpayers

Arlen Specter jeered by taxpayers By Michelle Malkin; February 20, 2009.

It’s about time. KDKA reports Turncoat Caucus Sen. Arlen Specter was met with jeers at a Pa. press conference. Betrayal of core fiscal conservative principles has consequences.

U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter was greeted with jeers at a press conference in Cranberry Township.

Conservatives are fuming after Specter cast the deciding vote that led to the passage of President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan.

Specter, 79, acknowledges his run for re-election will be tough.

He says he’s not completely happy with Obama’s plans but he points out that he was able to cut the price tag by over $100 billion and he says he was able to increase the amount of tax cuts.

Even so, Specter acknowledges the Republican Party’s conservative wing will attempt to unseat him in next year’s primary race.

Maybe Sen. Specter can dial up the president, who can stroke his ego and call him a patriot again to make him feel better.

Comment: The truth is that Specter betrayed something greater; he betrayed and betrays his oath to the US Constitution.

Nationalization of Banks and More Stimulus from US Senate

Nationalization of Banks and More Stimulus from US Senate; Stephen Hopkins; Aude Sapere; Feb 19, 2009.

The weblog Repeal the 17th Amendment has two posts today we really need to read. The first is a post concerning a recent comment made by Senator Lindsey Graham positing the idea of nationalizing US banks. The second is a comment made by Senator Daniel K. Inouye laying the foundation for a second stimulus package this summer.

This is a recipe for disaster and tyranny. I consider it amazing that we are even going forward with the stimulus in the first place, but now a Senator in our government, a republican mind you, is even openly considering nationalizing our banks. What has become of this country?

On another note, please look into the effort to repeal the 17th Amendment. Like the author of the above weblog, I too support the repeal of the 17th Amendment. When the 17th was ratified, the entire balance of power within our government was inexplicably damaged. Only when we return to the structure first created by the founders will we get this country on track.

Comment: I'm happy to get a mention every now and then, thanks.

You’re President for a Day and you have a Magic Wand!

You’re President for a Day and you have a Magic Wand!Ken Moyes' Weblog; Feb 19, 2009.

What would you do, if you were the President of the United States and had a magic political wand to change things for the better? I definitely know what I would do...

Constitutional Convention:

I would have the states institute a constitutional convention for the repeal of the 17th amendment. That amendment took away states’ rights and has allowed the federal government to explode in size. It took away the election of the Senators by the states’ legislatures and replaced it with the direct popular vote. The states including your state, no longer has the ability to steer our republic to its best interest...

GOP considers ex-Gov. Pataki for US Senate run

GOP considers ex-Gov. Pataki for US Senate run; by Michael Gormley; AP; 19 Feb 2009.

A person who spoke to George Pataki says national Republicans have approached the former New York governor about running for the Senate in 2010.

The person confirmed Tuesday's meeting in New York City between Pataki and Sen. John Cornyn (KOHR'-nihn), a Texas Republican who heads the party's national Senate campaign committee. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because he isn't authorized to comment...

Hawaii Senator Says Even More Stimulus may be Needed

Hawaii Senator Says Even More Stimulus may be Needed; by Derrick DePledge; honoluluadvertiser.com; Feb 18, 2009.

$787B stimulus package may not be enough to stem tide, senator says

U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye said yesterday that another federal stimulus may be necessary if the nation's economy does not improve...

Comment: Did you think otherwise? These are narcissistic people with a spending addiction; get ready folks this is just the beginning.

Senator Graham May Support Nationalizing Banks

One Oar in the Water: Senator Graham May Support Nationalizing Banks

Senator Graham may support nationalizing banks; by Anthony G. Martin; Columbia Conservative Examiner; February 18, 2009.

In a troubling development, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham says he may support the nationalization of U.S. banks.

In a special report in the Financial Times of London, the suggestion is made that since Graham and a small handful of other Republicans may get on board with this plan, Republicans must therefore be changing their minds toward the subject of nationalization.

Nothing could be further from the truth. And the article fails to mention that those Republicans in Congress who are vehemently opposed to nationalization far outnumber the few who support it.

As one of the central features of Socialism, 'nationalization' refers to government ownership and control of what once was considered private enterprise. With the current economic crisis in the U.S., the calls for Socialism in the form of the nationalization of private business have been mounting.

The thing that is odd, however, is that some of those voices, although not a majority, are Republican.

Our own senior Senator, Lindsey Graham, has told several news outlets since Sunday that the concept of nationalizing the banks is 'definitely something that should be on the table.'

Apparently Graham likes the notion of 'the Swedish plan,' which involves government seizure of troubled banks, taking steps to make them solvent, and then auctioning the banks to private investors once they are stabilized.

Barack Obama also supports this plan.

I remember a time in America when Republicans would be dead-set against any such plan. As staunch defenders of private enterprise who advocated a limited role of government in society, Republicans would view any plan to socialize any American business as heresy.

It is truly unfortunate that some within the GOP have strayed so far away from the foundational principles of the Party. It is even more unfortunate that one of our own Senators is one of them.

Read the rest of the article here.

Comment: One point I disagree with the author over is that "some within the GOP have strayed." The truth of the matter is that the whole dam party has swung over to the left, and many are openly socialist.

The System Is Broken

Featured Article - The System Is Broken; by omb; Liberty Bunker; Feb 15, 2009.

“The system is broken” and, paraphrasing, ‘it corrupts the people we send to Washington D.C.’. Sen. John McCain has said this, or something to this effect, literally hundreds of times in the media over the last ten years - sometimes followed by “We need meaningful campaign finance reform.” From this rhetoric spawned the ‘McCain-Feingold Act’ or, as Rush Limbaugh aptly termed it, “The Incumbent Protection Act”, which put various limits on campaign financing which prove to be more detrimental to incumbent challengers.

McCain was right, the system is broken, but he doesn’t have clue as to why. Otherwise, why would he assume that more legislation, derived from a broken system, would somehow fix the underlying system?

The system was broken in 1913 with the passage of the 17th Amendment. Most people, these days, have no idea of what the 17th Amendment did, or what its impact on our well designed system of checks and balances has yielded. Most are not aware that Senators used to be elected by their respective State’s legislatures, and not by popular vote, as is the case now.

In researching this topic, I came across a concise and understandable article by Mr. John MacMullin. He is a lawyer who has published a number of articles on the subject which have been mentioned in the National Law Journal. (See below for links to his website.) John has graciously given permission to me to reprint one of his articles here in The Liberty Bunker. If you want to understand one of the key reasons why the Federal Government is spiraling out of control, please read on.

For the rest of the article click here.

Comment: If you are just beginning to research information concerning the history of the 17th Amendment, please go to the Liberty Bunker and read the rest of the posting, which is from an earlier article written by John MacMullin. Mr MacMullin's article is one of the best articles published that fully explains how the balance of power was created in Congress, and then ruined by the 17th. Additionally, check out the links I have on the right side of the page, which are also essential for your understanding of the issue.

Amendment to Repeal the 17th Amendment

This is a proposed amendment copied from the article "Repeal the 17th Amendment," by John MacMullin, with commentary by Mr MacMullin. For the complete article please click here.

An Amendment to Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and Re-link the States to the Federal Political Process.

Section One. The Seventeenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section Two. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, selected by the legislature of each State. Each Senator shall serve a six-year term and may be re-appointed. Each Senator shall have one vote.

Comment: This section is intended to place the power of selection back in the hands of the state legislature.

Section Three. Among the duties of each Senator is the primary duty to represent the government of their State, and in particular, their State's Legislature, in the Senate. For the purpose of maintaining communications with its Senators, each State Legislature shall establish a liaison committee and shall specify the duties, procedures, and method of appointment of that committee. This committee shall work with its United States Senators in evaluating the impact of federal legislation on their State. All legislation proposed by Congress, and all treaties proposed, shall be submitted to each State's liaison committee.

Comment: This section describes a Senator's general responsibility for representing their state government and state legislature. This section also requires that each state establish a liaison committee. This committee is intended as a communications link and advisory body to the state legislature and not as a decision-maker for the state legislature. It should function during periods when the state legislature is not in session so those legislators can be alerted when critical federal action is taking place. Depending on the state, the committee may be made up of state legislators alone or, if so desired, could also be made up of legislators, members of the state's executive and judicial branches, and non-governmental members. Another objective of this provision is to allow each state legislature to define the relationship with their appointed senators. It also requires the committee to be given notice of proposed federal legislation and treaties. Thus, it addresses the holding of South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988), in which the Supreme Court held that in order in invalidate an act of Congress the states would have to show that the federal political process operated in a defective manner. Thus, a failure to submit proposed legislation and treaties to a state's liaison committee constitutes a failure in the political process.

Section Four. Senators are subject to removal by the State Legislature. Removal of a Senator requires a majority of each House of the State Legislature.

Comment: This section allows the state legislature to compel accountability from Senators. A voting majority is specified in order to preclude a federal court's imposition of a super-majority.

Section Five. Congress is precluded from enacting any legislation affecting the senatorial selection process. Each State Legislature shall enact rules and procedures, consistent with this amendment, related to the selection and removal of Senators. A State Legislature may implement a selection procedure whereby the State Legislature selects a Senator by a plurality vote rather than a majority. If a State Legislature fails to enact a selection procedure, then the State Legislature shall sit as a single body and shall select a Senator by a plurality vote. Irrespective of the procedures followed by the State Legislature, if the State Legislature does not choose a Senator within thirty days after a vacancy, the Governor of the State shall select the Senator.

Comment: This section gives each state the power to prescribe their own procedures and enact rules or legislation if other problems arise in the selection process. This would allow each state to solve its own procedural problems as they occurred. It also provides a default procedure in the event that a state does not choose a method. In the event of a deadlock, the Governor can break the deadlock. This would avoid all of the problems that occurred in the original concept. The plurality power is specified to assure that a federal court does not impose a majority vote. This section is not intended to lock a particular method in place, except as a default. For instance, a state legislature may choose to keep popular election and then validate the results of the election. Additionally, the state could choose a merit selection method by which a slate of names are submitted to the governor for selection. Alternatively, each house of the state legislature could choose a Senator, each by a different means. Successive elections until a majority is achieved could be implemented. Again, it is intended by this section to allow variability in the selection process limited only by the requirement that the selection be completed within thirty days. This should eliminate the deadlock issue.

Section Six. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. All state legislative proceedings, including, but not limited to, those concerning the liaison committee, procedural issues, and the selection and removal of a Senator are open to the public. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislatures.

Comment: This section allows for the phase-out of popular election. It also provides for open meetings as to any procedural and selection proceedings to promote public involvement in the process. This amendment is not intended to impact elector issues.

Comment: Rather than moving toward socialism as Feingold and McCain would have our nation do as a vacancy emerges for a particular Senate seat, John MacMullin, and many others, astutely recommend moving back to our "republican" (1) roots, and returning to the states their rightful representative authority in the US Senate, while at the same time increasing the authority of the state legislators to recall their Senator when he or she acts in a manner that is illegal or not in the best interest of their represented state, as many have done in recent years. This would solve many of the problems we have faced in this country from war mongering imperialism, to inappropriate behavior in men’s room stalls, to decapitation of our national economy, all of which resulted from popular elected US Senators shirking their constitutional oaths.

The US Senate is out of control, as is Washington DC, and we the people need to reel in this corrupt institution and fix the problem. Please pass on John’s site at Article V and his recommended legislation to your local state legislator. The time is now for the people act and through the states to take back Washington before it’s too late.



(1) Republicanism in the United States; Wikipedia.

Senator Udall Introduces Renewable Electricity Standard Bill

Senator Udall Introduces Renewable Electricity Standard Bill; RenewableEnergyWorld.com; 17 Feb 2009.

U.S. Senator Tom Udall (D-NM has introduced legislation calling for a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), that would require utilities to generate 25 percent of their electricity from wind, solar and other renewable energy sources by 2025. The bill, the first that Udall has introduced since being elected to the Senate, would require utilities to provide 6 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2012, and gradually increase that level to meet the 25 percent by 2025 goal.

Comment: More meddling in business by a fool. The problem we have with these idiots is as each year passes these dimwits meddle, or play like children, in areas they certainly have absolutely no business being in. Yet the foolish public sits back as these dimwits intercourse our economy and do nothing to stop their lunacy.

We Are What We Repeatedly Do

We Are What We Repeatedly Do: by Gary Wood; The Nolan Chart; February 17, 2009.

Note, this post is not quite on topic, but it had a reference to the 17th that caught my eye. Nonetheless, it's an interesting article.

The three federal branches were to separate the limited, specified powers while the states were to oversee this limitation through the Senate and the people were to oversee this limitation through their House. We shifted the paradigm, ignored the keystones of the 9th and 10th Amendments, abandoned the limited, enumerated powers of the federal government and allowed our state governments to be dictated to based on poor interpretations by the Judicial Branch at the urging of the Executive and Legislative Branch. It should surprise no one the Supreme Court has not found a single action of the Congress (no longer with a Senate representing the States thanks to the 17th Amendment) to be unconstitutional for over 70 years.

Read the whole article here.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand Keeps Two Rifles Under Her Bed

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand says she keeps two rifles under her bed; By Oren Yaniv; DAILY NEWS; February 16th 2009.

New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is dead serious about gun rights - she keeps two rifles under her bed.

The newly appointed senator, who got the National Rifle Association's top rating as an upstate House member, said her guns are not used for hunting, but for protection.

"If I want to protect my family, if I want to have a weapon in the home, that should be my right," she told Newsday.

New York does not require rifles to be registered, her aide noted.

The Democrat was criticized for her pro-gun stance after Gov. Paterson named her as Secretary of State Clinton's replacement in the Senate three weeks ago.

During a meeting last week at the Brooklyn school of a teen killed by a stray bullet, Gillibrand pledged to write legislation cracking down on illegal gun traffickers.

She told Newsday she rejects gun bans or limits on legal firearm owners.

Uncle Jay Explains the Stimulus Bill

One Oar in the Water: Uncle Jay Explains the Stimulus Bill

HT: JohnJ -- Repeal the 17th Amendment Discussion

Amendment Would Ban Appointed Senators

Amendment would ban appointed senators; By ALEX ISENSTADT; Politico; 11 Feb 2009.

According to Art. I, § 3 (part of which was replaced by the 17th Amendment), senators were chosen by State legislatures unless a vacancy occurred during a legislative recess, in which case the governor made an ...

Bipartisan Group Calls for End to Senate Appointments

Bipartisan Group Calls for End to Senate Appointments; Ben Pershing; Washington Post; 12 Feb 2009.

Smith called the very existence of gubernatorial appointments of senators an "unintended constitutional consequence" of the 17th amendment....

Are All Senators Free From Tax Errors?

Are All Senators Free From Tax Errors? Politico.Com; Feb 11, 2009.

When Timothy Geithner appeared before the Senate Finance Committee last month, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) accused the soon-to-be treasury secretary of “dancing around” questions about his taxes.

When news broke that Tom Daschle had failed to pay taxes due on a car and driver, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) declared himself “very troubled by it.”

But neither Kyl nor Cornyn seems interested in answering questions about his own tax history.

They’re hardly alone.

Last week, Politico asked the offices of all 99 sitting senators to say who prepares their taxes, whether they or the Internal Revenue Service has ever discovered an error on returns they’ve filed, and whether they’ve ever had to pay back taxes. (Read all the surveys here.)

Of the 56 senators who have responded to the survey, eight said that mistakes have been made on their tax returns, and six said they have paid back taxes. Thirty senators said that no mistakes have been discovered on their returns and that they’ve never paid back taxes - at least to the best of their recollection.

The offices of two senators - Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) - told Politico that they would not answer the survey questions. The offices of Kyl and 42 other senators - 17 Republicans, 24 Democrats and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) - failed to respond at all.

Some Senate offices took issue with the line of questioning, saying it was either unfair or an invasion of privacy. Aides to one senator told Politico that they considered the survey “presumptuous and intrusive.” Some Senate press secretaries encouraged others not to respond to the survey.

Twelve senators, including Cornyn, responded with generic statements about their compliance with financial disclosure requirements.

The office of Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) - who declared Geithner’s explanation of his tax problems “unconvincing and unsupported by the facts” - responded to the survey by referring Politico “to the senator’s financial disclosure forms, which are public.” The office of Sen. Michael B. Enzi (R-Wyo.) - who said Geithner’s failure to pay taxes was “inexcusable” - said that “all the financial records Sen. Enzi is required to release publicly are open for anyone to see.”

But senators are not required to include their tax returns in their annual disclosure forms. And although some senators do so voluntarily, the returns themselves would not show if a senator or the IRS subsequently discovered mistakes or if a senator was required to pay back taxes.

Read the whole article here.

Comment: Certainly I know mistakes can be made by anyone on tax returns, I have made them myself, but when a government body excludes themselves from any level of transparency so the citizenry can examine their character, which is their right and obligation, what does that say about the our government? What does it say about the people that continue to elect them?

There are few government bodies more corrupt than the US Senate. End the corruption; repeal the 17th Amendment.

That Pesky 17th Amendment

That Pesky 17th Amendment; Will Wilson; GOVERNING.Com; 10 February 2009.

Some state budget stabilization funds wound up on the stimulus cutting room floor yesterday. Matthew Yglesias wonders why seemingly strong political constituencies like state-level politicians and state employees were left out in the cold.

Tyler Cowen has the answer. In short, voters will blame governors, not U.S. senators, for state fiscal problems.

Governors and state legislators might have a bit more clout at the federal level if it weren't for that darn 17th Amendment. It's been suggested that the 17th Amendment contributed to the expansion of the federal government; which makes it all the more painfully ironic that states get a bit of short shrift in this biggest expansion of them all.

(Note: go to the actual article linked above; the author includes a number of amplifying links in his article, especially one from Tyler Cowen and Todd Zwicki. I just switched to a Mac and I am still learning my way, so my publishing skills are lacking at the moment.)

Comment: Folks like G. Edward Griffin have been telling us for years that the expansion of the federal government was due to the 17th Amendment, but sadly most have dismissed him as some sort of fringe radical. However, I think the main stream is waking up to the corrupt nature of our current form of US Senate, which resulted from the 16th and 17th Amendments, especially during the last year of this massive economic “give away” and the implosion of our economy, albeit slowly.

Sad News, Cornell McCleary Rest in Peace

One Oar in the Water: Sad News, Cornell McCleary Rest in Peace

My prayers go out to all of Cornell McCleary's family and friends. He was a man that truly wanted to make a difference in this world.

I never met Cornell face to face but I had the great opportunity to correspond with him through email, blogging and discussion group forums as part of the State of Ohio Blogger Alliance, and you couldn’t help but appreciate his wonderful insight and wisdom. There is no doubt in my mind that he was a patriot who loved this country and his community in a way that few understand during this era. I am truly honored to know him in the limited capacity I did, and only wish I had the opportunity to meet him in person.

God bless Cornell, rest in peace.

Feingold Pushing Pure Democracy

Feingold Pushing Pure Democracy; Ann Schibler; JBS; 9 February 2009.

Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) is proposing a constitutional amendment that would change the way vacant Senate seats are filled.

Presently, whenever there is a vacant senate seat, the executive authority of the particular state that is missing representation — the governor — appoints someone to fill the seat. Feingold claims the current system invites corruption and cites the recent questionable appointment of Roland Burris in Illinois by Gov. Blagojevich, problems with Sen. Judd Gregg’s open seat in New Hampshire, and with Hillary Clinton’s New York seat.

Feingold calls the present system a “constitutional anachronism.” “It is time to pass a constitutional amendment to end appointments by governors and the political gamesmanship they encourage," he said.

Read the whole article here.

Senator Pot, Meet Secretary-Designate Kettle

From ABC Correspondent Jake Tapper's weblog, Political Punch...

The Salt Lake Tribune notes that just "hours after former Sen. Tom Daschle dropped his bid to become the next Health and Human Services Secretary, Utah Sen. Bob Bennett called it all but 'inevitable.'... He could not possibly have functioned effectively with this cloud over him," Bennett said, noting that the $140,000 in back taxes Daschle paid is "more than most Americans make in a year."

Notes the Tribune, "Good thing no president ever tried to nominate Bennett to a Cabinet post, because he has had his own problems with back taxes. In late 2005, Bennett and some business partners paid back about $320,000 in back property taxes that had accumulated over four years for their Anniversary Inns business, and that's in addition to $140,000 in tax liens for late sales and tourism room taxes.

"For the record, that's about three times 'more than most Americans make in a year.'"

Senator Dodd and Angelo

Editorial-Angelo Who?, New York Times, February 8, 2009.

After months of delay, Senator Christopher Dodd has offered a fuller but less than satisfactory account of the V.I.P. mortgage loans extended to him by a key player in the subprime mortgage crisis. Mr. Dodd, the banking committee chairman who oversees remedies for the continuing financial crisis, denied any ethical wrongdoing or “sweetheart deals” in the $781,000 house refinancings he got through the Countrywide Financial Corporation.

Even so, the senator announced his mortgages would be refinanced elsewhere as he decried being listed in internal loan files as a “Friend of Angelo.” That’s Angelo Mozilo, the Countrywide chief executive who had a lot of Washington friends happy to avail themselves of attractive mortgage deals before being overtaken by the subprime scandal.

Last summer, a former Countrywide executive disclosed the V.I.P. program and estimated that it could save Mr. Dodd more than $70,000 across the years of his loans. The senator denied any Angelo friendship or cut-rate favoritism in what he said seemed a mere courtesy service, and he promised a detailed accounting.

That finally came this month, but in an oddly limited viewing of documents offered by the senator in his Connecticut office, not the Capitol. Reporters could peruse, but not take or copy, the documents. They showed strong credit ratings for Mr. Dodd and his wife, who firmly insisted they received a lower interest rate through normal negotiation, not insiders’ pandering. The delay, said Senator Dodd, was due to waiting on a Senate ethics inquiry that has offered no results so far.

No one has accused Senator Dodd of serious wrongdoing. Rather, the suspicion is he might have been tripped up by the moneyed Washington subculture where powerful incumbents are invited to get something wholesale. The chastened senator apologized to constituents that he was not more responsive much earlier. He and his colleagues are going to have to do better.

Comment: Sure, he and his colleagues will do a better job, a better job concealing their activities from the citizenry.

Lawmakers in 20 States Move to Reclaim Sovereignty

From WorldNetDaily:

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Lawmakers in 20 states move to reclaim sovereignty
Obama's $1 trillion deficit-spending 'stimulus plan' seen as last straw
Posted: February 06, 2009
11:50 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
WorldNetDaily


NEW YORK – As the Obama administration attempts to push through Congress a nearly $1 trillion deficit spending plan that is weighted heavily toward advancing typically Democratic-supported social welfare programs, a rebellion against the growing dominance of federal control is beginning to spread at the state level.

So far, eight states have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.

Analysts expect that in addition, another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.

"What we are trying to do is to get the U.S. Congress out of the state's business," Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Randy Brogdon told WND.

"Congress is completely out of line spending trillions of dollars over the last 10 years putting the nation into a debt crisis like we've never seen before," Brogdon said, arguing that the Obama stimulus plan is the last straw taxing state patience in the brewing sovereignty dispute.

"This particular 111th Congress is the biggest bunch of over-reachers and underachievers we've ever had in Congress," he said.

"A sixth-grader should realize you can't borrow money to pay off your debt, and that is the Obama administration's answer for a stimulus package," he added.

The Ninth Amendment reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Tenth Amendment specifically provides, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Brogdon, the lead sponsor of the Oklahoma state senate version of the sovereignty bill, has been a strong opponent of extending the plan to build a four-football-fields-wide Trans-Texas Corridor parallel to Interstate-35 to Oklahoma, as WND reported.

Rollback federal authority

The various sovereignty measures moving through state legislatures are designed to reassert state authority through a rollback of federal authority under the powers enumerated in the Constitution, with the states assuming the governance of the non-enumerated powers, as required by the Tenth Amendment.

The state sovereignty measures, aimed largely at the perceived fiscal irresponsibility of Congress in the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, have gained momentum with the $1 trillion deficit-spending economic stimulus package the Obama administration is currently pushing through Congress.

Particularly disturbing to many state legislators are the increasing number of "unfunded mandates" that have proliferated in social welfare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, in which bills passed by Congress dictate policy to the states without providing funding.

In addition, the various state resolutions include discussion of a wide range of policy areas, including the regulation of firearms sales (Montana) and the demand to issue drivers licenses with technology to embed personal information under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and the Real ID Act (Michigan).

Hawaii's measure calls for a new state constitutional convention to return self-governance, a complaint that traces back to the days it was a U.S. territory, prior to achieving statehood in 1959.

"We are trying to send a message to the federal government that the states are trying to reclaim their sovereignty," Republican Rep. Matt Shea, the lead sponsor of Washington's sovereignty resolution told WND.

"State sovereignty has been eroded in so many areas, it's hard to know where to start," he said. "There are a ton of federal mandates imposed on states, for instance, on education spending and welfare spending."

Shea said the Obama administration's economic stimulus package moving through Congress is a "perfect example."

"In the state of Washington, we have increased state spending 33 percent in the last three years and hired 6,000 new state employees, often using federal mandates as an excuse to grow state government," he said. "We need to return government back down to the people, to keep government as close to the local people as possible."

Shea is a private attorney who serves with the Alliance Defense Fund, a nationwide network of about 1,000 attorneys who work pro-bono. As a counter to the ACLU, the alliance seeks to protect and defend religious liberty, the sanctity of life and traditional family values.

Republican state Rep. Judy Burges, the primary sponsor of the sovereignty resolution in the Arizona House, told WND the federal government "has been trouncing on our constitutional rights."

"The real turning point for me was the Real ID act, which involved both a violation of the Fourth Amendments rights against the illegal searches and seizures and the Tenth Amendment," she said.

Burges told WND she is concerned that the overreaching of federal powers could lead to new legislation aimed at confiscating weapons from citizens or encoding ammunition.

"The Real ID Act was so broadly written that we are afraid that it involves the potential for "mission-creep," that could easily involve confiscation of firearms and violations of the Second Amendment," she said.

Burges said she has been surprised at the number of e-mails she has received in support of the sovereignty measure.

"We are a sovereign state in Arizona, not a branch of the federal government, and we need to be treated as such, she insisted.

Comment: The obvious comment is that one huge step toward state sovereignty would come with the repeal of the 17th Amendment; then and only then would the 50 states regain a measure of representation in Congress and the Federal Government.

Coburn Blasts Economic Stimulus Bill

In my humble opinion, Coburn is one of a small number of statesmen in Congress.



Comment: There is not much to say about this the economic stimulus bill. Congress got us where we are today through their incessant need for political gain and now they want to implement socialism to solve our problems. We the people will pay in more ways than one.

Jim Beers: Post Check on Liberty – The US Senate

HT: John MacMullin (ArticleV.Com)

John sent me a blog article written by Jim Beers (JimBeers7: Uncommon Sense) regarding the present state of the US Senate. Normally I post entire articles I get, but this is a little longer than most, so I recommend you check out his posting on his site. But I’d like to pull a few quotes that are on target and highlight the need for reform in the US Senate.

The US Senate is arguably the strongest governmental entity in the world designed to preserve and protect the liberty and freedoms that have been the hallmarks responsible for the most envied society in the history of the world, the United States of America.

In short, the monumental collapse of the US Senate in recent years is responsible for the slide back into the sort of despicable central rule by a few that The Founding Fathers sought to replace with The Declaration of Independence and US Constitution after so many sacrificed their lives and fortunes to drive tyranny from our shores.

There are two Senators from each State. This is because they were intended to represent the interests of THEIR State as they exercised their power and duties in the national government. Thus little Rhode Island and gargantuan California are equal in this forum: why? The reason was that the US Senate was intended to be THE bastion to protect States Rights from Federal usurpation.

…No such accountability exists in the US Senate today. New England Senators garner New England votes from unaffected voters by forcing wolves into Idaho or banning logging in Oregon or eliminating grazing allotments in Arizona. Senators from other States maintain their careers by “bringing home the bacon” otherwise thought of as money from other taxpayers living elsewhere. As this reelection Ponzi scheme has grown, Americans have come to demean States Rights’ as archaic relics of a past that impedes “progress”. One need look no further than the calls to eliminate the Electoral College process (election of Presidents by STATES in these United States of America) for electing Presidents as the importance of local control of local community life becomes a dimming star in an assumedly distant past.

When US Senators are popularly elected, thanks to their enormous power, they become political versions of the aristocracies of old. They are showered with money and publicity from powerful interests as they exercise their power in ways that are unseen by voters. They shrug and blame “the law” or others for regulations authorized and enforced based on legislation they supported on behalf of their benefactors.

Like Dickens’ Christmas Ghosts, the current aristocrat-wannabees in the US Senate are little more than scary illusions that are only good for convincing us of the need for reform.

Jim points are, again, right on target. Check out his post and his other blog articles, it’s time well spent.

Dispensing with Democracy, Really?

I came across another commentary about the lack of “democracy” concerning the vacant US Senate seat selection in Illinois, New Hampshire and New York. RealClearPolitcs’ Steve Chapman is upset with the situation and of course his solution is what, more democracy. While I agree with him that the situation in these states is questionable, Mr. Chapman’s solution will only add to the big money politics that has infected the US Congress, and will not provide the “people” with any more power than they have today, which if there is any remaining is rapidly becoming absent.

Comment: This country is not a democracy, it is a republic. This is one of the painful facts that neo-liberals fail to understand. This country is a collective group of “states” that grants limited power to the federal government, not the other way around. Power is first derived from God and given to the people and then given to the state; from the state to federal government. In the federal government the people are represented in the House of Representatives, and the States were supposed to be represented in the Senate. This all changed with the enacting of the 17th Amendment. The constitutional answer is not to provide for direct elections or governor appointments, but to allow for the state legislative body to choose their representative to Congress.

There will be many that are unhappy with the true historical process, but it is as the Founders intended. Certainly the Founders never intended for the US Senate to become this bloated viral infectious body where favor is given to the highest bidder or where a Kennedy can instantly buy a seat. Maybe if we moved back to the original intent the Founders developed through serious deliberation and reflection we wouldn’t have the ridiculous sums of money driving campaigns and silly appointments by lap dog governors, not to mention the moronic narcissistic oligarchs that inhabit that chamber. No one system is perfect, but give the Founders some credit, they recognized human weakness and created a form of government that was meant to protect the people, not the empowering of a central government as Mr. Chapman is advocating.

More Democracy from McCain and Feingold: How to Fill a Senate Seat

HT: Lux Libertas

It seems that Senators McCain and Feingold are upset with the way the US Senate seats in Illinois and New York are being filled. Mister McCain and Feingold prefer and advocate direct elections by the “masses” providing for greater democracy (that’s code word for more oligarchic practices) over state laws. So they are co-sponsoring a constitutional amendment that would provide power to the people and take it away from those “nasty” governors who should be doing the bidding of Washington power élites, like McCain and Feingold. Check out the pimp piece the New York Times’ Editorial Team wrote on behalf of McCain and Feingold. The Times foresees this constitutional amendment as building upon another “great” piece of legislative thought, the 17th Amendment; whoopee!

Comment: I think it’s reasonable to say that any piece of legislation coming from both McCain and Feingold is not going to be in the best interest of the “people” and would only continue to buttress the oligarchs in the Senate. The editorial staff at the New York Times would be well served if they actually spent a little time reading about the creation of our government and the role of the Senate in relationship to the States.

Pigs at the Trough

From Cafe Hayek:

Words of wisdom

Russell Roberts

Overheard:

If you're not at the table, you're on the menu.

Summarizes well what people think of the political process. As the Senate debates the current proposal to spend our money, it is way too accurate.

Comment: If 17th Amendment didn't exist with all its associated political gain, would the US Senate led by actual State representatives contribute to our current economic struggle by digging deeper into this hole as the current Senate is, or would there be restraint and more concern for limited federal government involvement? If the 17th is ever going to be overturned we have to understand the current view of the US citizenry. Like it or not it is reflective of and in the current Congressional body.

I'm Still in the Fight

To all the folks that read this weblog and have the same hope to repeal the 17th Amendment, please know that I have not given up this weblog. My work load increased significantly since November and I had to put this on the back burner until I could comfortably accomplish my work and blog at the same time. During this month I should begin to post again and will try to have something posted at least three times a week. And hopefully daily as March approaches. Stay in the fight folks, this repeal is worth our effort and I will stay with it.

Thanks