Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
New Member to 17th Blogging Team
I am literally a day late in announcing this, but Repeal the 17th Amendment Discussion Board member JohnJ has joined on with me to keep a steady flow of information posted to this weblog and to keep you posted on the doings of the Washington oligarchs, to which I am very appreciative.
JohnJ has some interesting perspectives and is a young legal scholar as well, so expect some very entertaining and provocative postings. Welcome!
JohnJ has some interesting perspectives and is a young legal scholar as well, so expect some very entertaining and provocative postings. Welcome!
The Problems With Barnett's Bill
Barnett's Bill has ten clauses, and none of them involve repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.
1. Repealing the income tax: This is the first one, and it is the one people are most likely to support.
2. Limiting the necessary and proper clause: It's a good idea to limit it, and Barnett's proposal deals with some of the technical language the Supreme Court has created in order to twist the clause into its current meaning. But without dealing with the Court's "power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution", the real problem is not addressed. This would have been the place to deal with Jefferson's critiques.
3. Unfunded mandates: Unfunded mandates give states more freedom than "funded" mandates. It's really very simple to see why. Since the money always comes from the same place, a "funded" mandate is merely a requirement that the money be raised in a particular way while an unfunded mandate gives the state the flexibility to raise the money in any way the people see fit. Don't let the words used to label these things deceive you into thinking they're something they're not.
4. Limiting the treaty power: Barnett's proposal again deals with some of the technical issues without addressing the real problem. Most of theses limitations were addressed by the original structure of the Constitution, which was distorted by the Seventeenth Amendment. For example, the original Constitution would have allowed states to protect their own sovereignty because the Senate, which ratified treaties and appointments, including judicial appointments, belonged to the states. Limitations of power must be dealt with structurally. Power isn't limited by merely writing the words "only good laws can be passed". The written word doesn't protect anything, and can actually be (mis)interpreted by a court to mean anything. The best protections are structural.
5. Unlimited money in politics: Constitutions are really good at establishing a framework for making decisions but not so good at actually making those decisions. The Constitution's protection of speech and property did not stop the government from limiting those freedoms before, and, without better structural safeguards, merely saying that the government is limited will not make it so. Many of the principles Barnett is expounding are good, but his proposals don't address the real problems.
6. The power of the states to limit federal power: unless I'm missing something, this is actually really stupid. Since three-fourths of the states can amend the Constitution anyways, this doesn't seem to do anything.
7. Term limits: The politicians aren't the problem. This country needs better voters. Until people start voting better, there can be no solution, political or otherwise.
8. Balanced budget: unless you're reading closely, you'll miss the line-item veto Barnett grants the Executive. The Executive branch is way too powerful already, and granting a line-item veto is a really bad idea. I'm actually in favor of removing the Presidential veto altogether. The veto was Hamilton's idea, with disastrous results.
9. The expansion of the judiciary: This is a no-good, really-bad, horrible idea. The people's rights are protected by the legislature,not the judiciary. When the people believe the judiciary protects their rights, they stop caring about them and start voting themselves largess from the public treasury instead of voting to protect their rights. The judiciary cannot protect individual rights, but it can sure pretend to do so. Don't buy it.
10. No judicial activism: since most of these amendments put the judiciary in charge of interpreting them, it's a bit like putting the fox in charge of protecting the chicken coop. Who watches the watchmen?
1. Repealing the income tax: This is the first one, and it is the one people are most likely to support.
2. Limiting the necessary and proper clause: It's a good idea to limit it, and Barnett's proposal deals with some of the technical language the Supreme Court has created in order to twist the clause into its current meaning. But without dealing with the Court's "power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution", the real problem is not addressed. This would have been the place to deal with Jefferson's critiques.
3. Unfunded mandates: Unfunded mandates give states more freedom than "funded" mandates. It's really very simple to see why. Since the money always comes from the same place, a "funded" mandate is merely a requirement that the money be raised in a particular way while an unfunded mandate gives the state the flexibility to raise the money in any way the people see fit. Don't let the words used to label these things deceive you into thinking they're something they're not.
4. Limiting the treaty power: Barnett's proposal again deals with some of the technical issues without addressing the real problem. Most of theses limitations were addressed by the original structure of the Constitution, which was distorted by the Seventeenth Amendment. For example, the original Constitution would have allowed states to protect their own sovereignty because the Senate, which ratified treaties and appointments, including judicial appointments, belonged to the states. Limitations of power must be dealt with structurally. Power isn't limited by merely writing the words "only good laws can be passed". The written word doesn't protect anything, and can actually be (mis)interpreted by a court to mean anything. The best protections are structural.
5. Unlimited money in politics: Constitutions are really good at establishing a framework for making decisions but not so good at actually making those decisions. The Constitution's protection of speech and property did not stop the government from limiting those freedoms before, and, without better structural safeguards, merely saying that the government is limited will not make it so. Many of the principles Barnett is expounding are good, but his proposals don't address the real problems.
6. The power of the states to limit federal power: unless I'm missing something, this is actually really stupid. Since three-fourths of the states can amend the Constitution anyways, this doesn't seem to do anything.
7. Term limits: The politicians aren't the problem. This country needs better voters. Until people start voting better, there can be no solution, political or otherwise.
8. Balanced budget: unless you're reading closely, you'll miss the line-item veto Barnett grants the Executive. The Executive branch is way too powerful already, and granting a line-item veto is a really bad idea. I'm actually in favor of removing the Presidential veto altogether. The veto was Hamilton's idea, with disastrous results.
9. The expansion of the judiciary: This is a no-good, really-bad, horrible idea. The people's rights are protected by the legislature,not the judiciary. When the people believe the judiciary protects their rights, they stop caring about them and start voting themselves largess from the public treasury instead of voting to protect their rights. The judiciary cannot protect individual rights, but it can sure pretend to do so. Don't buy it.
10. No judicial activism: since most of these amendments put the judiciary in charge of interpreting them, it's a bit like putting the fox in charge of protecting the chicken coop. Who watches the watchmen?
A Bill Of Federalism; Randy E. Barnett
A Bill Of Federalism; Randy E. Barnett; Forbes
The article by Mr. Barnett is being discussed by quite a few folks in the blogosphere. While I think the idea of removing power from the federal government and returning it to the rightful hands of the states is a great idea, I am inclined to think his plan is faulty, however there is much that I really like.
Comment: Rather than creating new laws to layer upon the established laws, why not remove the laws causing some of the problems, like repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments.
The article by Mr. Barnett is being discussed by quite a few folks in the blogosphere. While I think the idea of removing power from the federal government and returning it to the rightful hands of the states is a great idea, I am inclined to think his plan is faulty, however there is much that I really like.
Comment: Rather than creating new laws to layer upon the established laws, why not remove the laws causing some of the problems, like repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments.
Senate Chinese Drywall Hearing Yields Few Answers
Senate Chinese Drywall Hearing Yields Few Answers; Newsinferno.com
Comment: This might have been one of the news articles that I would have dismissed if hadn't been for the fact that a cousin of mine had to move out of her recently built house to have every piece of drywall removed. Unfortunately there are folks within her community that are not covered under their home owners insurance.
The big question we should be asking ourselves in light of the automaker debacle is, why isn't a product as simple and easy to make such as drywall not being made in this country?
Lawmakers on a Senate subcommittee got to hear first-hand yesterday about problems associated with defective Chinese drywall. ...
Comment: This might have been one of the news articles that I would have dismissed if hadn't been for the fact that a cousin of mine had to move out of her recently built house to have every piece of drywall removed. Unfortunately there are folks within her community that are not covered under their home owners insurance.
The big question we should be asking ourselves in light of the automaker debacle is, why isn't a product as simple and easy to make such as drywall not being made in this country?
Friday, May 29, 2009
Skin Deep
Greg Gutfield takes on Obama's ability to hide behind race in order to make his critics look like racists.
My question is, what happened to all those Democrats who criticized McCain for attempting to appeal to female voters by choosing a female running mate? Was that just partisan criticism?
My question is, what happened to all those Democrats who criticized McCain for attempting to appeal to female voters by choosing a female running mate? Was that just partisan criticism?
That's Gotta Hurt
Reason TV created this video critiquing President Obama's tough new fuel efficiency standards:
That's gonna leave a mark.
That's gonna leave a mark.
Why the 10th Amendment?
Why the 10th Amendment? by Brion McClanahan; The Conservative Underground
...Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, one of most ardent nationalists at the Philadelphia convention, considered the Senate as originally designed before the perversion of the 17th Amendment offered the only protection for the commercial States of the East. ...
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Judge Napolitano: Repeal the 17th Amendment For Better Local Representation
Judge Napolitano: Repeal the 17th Amendment For Better Local Representation
Taking Back America is Doable
HT: Mike P. at the Repeal the 17th Discussion Board
Taking Back America is Doable; Dream a Little Dream...
Author Candace E. Salima offers some comments concerning the 17th Amendment.
Taking Back America is Doable; Dream a Little Dream...
Author Candace E. Salima offers some comments concerning the 17th Amendment.
History Lesson: 17th Amendment
History Lesson: 17th Amendment; Sugarplum's Solo Blog
Comment: The author's conclusion is correct, however the first facts offered are in fact part of the propaganda the progressives spread then and now, all of which has been disproved by historians for some time. Professor Zwicki, among others, offers what is now the clearer picture of the forces behind the movement to enact the 17th.
... However, what it ended up doing was opening the door for the disintegration of State's Rights, which began happening more heavily during the reign of FDR. Yes, I used the heavily loaded word "reign" because what else can I say about a man who had zero respect for the precedent of Washington and was re-elected three times? Sigh. That was a long sentence.
States should have rights. I know governors have power, but direct democracy isn't such a great idea. California has it -- we make laws that aren't change-able through our proposition system and if that isn't mob-rule, I don't know what is.
So, conclusion is: 1913: 17th Amendment: States lost their representation in our federal government.
Comment: The author's conclusion is correct, however the first facts offered are in fact part of the propaganda the progressives spread then and now, all of which has been disproved by historians for some time. Professor Zwicki, among others, offers what is now the clearer picture of the forces behind the movement to enact the 17th.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Senate GOP Lowers Expectations of Court Fight
Senate GOP Lowers Expectations of Court Fight: New York Times
Comment: While the circus gets under way in this ring, be watchful for the other acts in other rings.
Asked what kind of candidate could be rejected he replied that the Senate should not confirm anyone who would bring their personal views to the bench or ...
Comment: While the circus gets under way in this ring, be watchful for the other acts in other rings.
Ron Paul's Son Makes Move For Bunning's Kentucky Senate Seat
Ron Paul's Son Makes Move For Bunning's Kentucky Senate Seat; CQ Politics
Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, the son of Texas congressman and 2008 presidential candidate Ron Paul, has organized an "exploratory" campaign for the Senate seat of Republican incumbent Jim Bunning.
Rand Paul, an eye surgeon from Bowling Green, disclosed his plans Thursday night on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC program and in a press release on Friday.
"The Republican Party's lost their mojo," Paul said on MSNBC. He added, "We've lost our believability. It's not that our message is so bad, but we've said we're fiscal conservatives, and then we doubled the deficit." ...
McConnell Quizzed on Bunning 'Endorsement
Eye on the Senate: McConnell Quizzed on Bunning 'Endorsement;' CQPolitics.com
The Senate's top Republican responded that "what's happening in Kentucky, obviously, is the race has not yet formed. Sen. Bunning has encouraged someone to ...
States Must Force 17th Amendment Showdown
States Must Force 17th Amendment Showdown; Daily Paul
Note to reader: I have the same article posted to the side panel of the blog a while ago. I consider it one of the essential articles one needs to read to become acquainted with the 17th Amendment repeal issue. I hope the readers and staff at the Daily Paul will check out the others I have posted as well.
Note to reader: I have the same article posted to the side panel of the blog a while ago. I consider it one of the essential articles one needs to read to become acquainted with the 17th Amendment repeal issue. I hope the readers and staff at the Daily Paul will check out the others I have posted as well.
Check out this 2005 article by Devvy Kidd titled "States Must Force 17th Amendment Showdown": http://www.worldnetdaily....
It argues that the 17th amendment was never properly ratified, and thus is invalid. Devvy calls on state legislatures to force a legal battle over the issue by appointing two senators and sending them to D.C. to be seated. Of course, there will already be two popularly elected senators present, so the issue will then be thrust into the national spotlight (and hopefully a court room) where the evidence can be presented. If the legislature were to win and prove that the 17th amendment was fraudulently ratified, the Senate would once again be placed under the control of the state legislatures.
A legislature attempting this is sure to strike fear into the heart of Washington D.C. During this era when the state sovereignty movement is growing, now seems like the perfect time to go for it. I say we start e-mailing the legislatures of states that have already passed a sovereignty resolution (and if it only passed one chamber of the legislature, just e-mail that chamber): http://www.tenthamendment...
Here's a bunch of the e-mail addresses: http://reformedapologian....
The question is, would any legislature be brave enough to do this?
Ted Stevens, Back On the Scene
Ted Stevens, Back On the Scene; The Sleuth; Washington Post
Oh how the world turns. While his prosecutors are now under investigation for misconduct, the curmudgeonly ex-senator Ted Stevens is back on the Washington party circuit - vindicated, shrimp cocktail style.
The famed former senator from Alaska, who narrowly lost reelection in November after he was convicted on corruption charges, showed up at a fancy book party Thursday night for Philadelphia radio talk show host Michael Smerconish. ...
As Pennsylvania politics was the theme of last night's book party for Smerconish, Stevens counseled a concerned fan of Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) not to worry about his pal and old colleague being stripped of his seniority after switching parties.
"Arlen Specter is Arlen Specter. He'll maneuver just fine on the Senate floor," Stevens huffed. He said he sent Specter a letter of support after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's surprise move to deny Specter any committee chairmanships even after he had switched to the Democratic Party.
He also predicted Specter would win the general election in the Pennsylvania Senate race.
Obama Sways Congressman to Pass on New York Senate Democratic Primary
Obama Sways Congressman to Pass on New York Senate Democratic Primary; FOXNews
Comment: Will of the people, or will of the emperor; I wonder how Mr Feingold would answer the question? I say run Steve, run...
If President Obama didn't have enough on his plate already, he's now thrust himself into the middle of a statewide race that has sparked growing resentment among some New York Democrats.
Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) asked Obama to implore Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) against challenging New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in the Democratic primary next year, FOX News has learned.
Comment: Will of the people, or will of the emperor; I wonder how Mr Feingold would answer the question? I say run Steve, run...
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Obama war court decision backed by key GOP senator
Obama war court decision backed by key GOP senator; MiamiHerald.com
South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham praised President Barack Obama's decision to maintain a system of military ...
Graham's stance puts him at odds with lawmakers from his party who support the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act, which Ohio Rep. John Boehner, the House Republican leader, introduced last week. The bill, which would require governors and legislatures to approve detainee transfers to their states, has 103 co-sponsors.
The Betrayal » Is It Time For a Constitutional Convention?
The Betrayal » Is It Time For a Constitutional Convention? By Lynn Dartez
Before the 17th Amendment, the states appointed senators. Since then, it has become a beauty contest among liars and thieves. Prior to 1913, members of the United States Senate guided the federal government, but they did so in ...
Friday, May 15, 2009
Another article by a pro-Feingold Supporter
No more appointed senators; By David Segal
Another article by a pro-Feingold supporter, who happens to be an elected official and has no understanding of US history.
Another article by a pro-Feingold supporter, who happens to be an elected official and has no understanding of US history.
The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, removed the appointment of senators from the purview of state legislatures, mandating popular elections, excepting for ...
Senate to Vote Thursday on $100 Billion Emergency Spending for IMF
Senate to Vote Thursday on $100 Billion Emergency Spending for IMF; FOXNews
Comment: Hey what the hell, borrow some more from China, print a little bit more on the side, what the hell does it matter we are heading down the toilet anyway.
President Obama has formally requested the money for a $100 billion U.S. loan to the International Monetary Fund, following up on an international commitment to triple IMF resources for struggling nations.
The request, though, could prove politically tricky as Republicans keyed in on spending are raising questions about why such a hefty amount of money is being stuck in the war funding bill before Congress this week.
"Forcing taxpayers to borrow another $100 billion from China to bail out foreign countries makes no (sense) when we're already facing record debt and millions of Americans are losing their jobs here at home," an aide to Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said in an e-mail. The aide said DeMint would offer an amendment to strip the money. ...
Comment: Hey what the hell, borrow some more from China, print a little bit more on the side, what the hell does it matter we are heading down the toilet anyway.
US Senate to debate nearly $40 billion for clean water
US Senate to debate nearly $40 billion for clean water; Reuters
The Senate must pass the bill and then meet with the House to hammer out compromise legislation to send to President Barack Obama to sign into law. ...
Senate panel backs $91.3 billion war funding bill
Senate panel backs $91.3 billion war funding bill; Washington Post
The US Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday approved a $91.3 billion measure to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through ...
Credit card reform bill slows in US Senate
Credit card reform bill slows in US Senate; Reuters
A credit card reform bill that would ban arbitrary interest rate hikes remained stalled in the Senate on ...
Senators Snowe and Specter defining bipartisan?
Senators Snowe and Specter defining bipartisan? Examiner.com
Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) urged President Barack Obama to name a woman to the Supreme Court. In a letter to the President...
Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions says he's open to a minority candidate
Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions says he's open to a minority; The Birmingham News
Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Republican point man on inspecting the next nominee for the US Supreme Court, said Wednesday that President Barack ...
Senator calls for 'truth commission' to probe Bush-era interrogations
Senator calls for 'truth commission' to probe Bush-era interrogations; Los Angeles Times
Comment: The stupidity of the Republicans and the hypocrisy of the Democrats...
Sheldon Whitehouse says officials apparently used twisted interpretations of the law to justify harsh tactics such as waterboarding. ...
Comment: The stupidity of the Republicans and the hypocrisy of the Democrats...
Is History on Crist's Side in the Governor-to-Senator Shuffle
Is History on Crist's Side in the Governor-to-Senator Shuffle; CQPolitics.com
Of the four current senators who were first elected as sitting governors — the feat Crist is now attempting — Gregg could have run for another term as ...
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Senate Republicans Block Obama Nominee for Interior Post
Senate Republicans Block Obama Nominee for Interior Post; Washington Post
On a party-line vote, Senate Republicans blocked President Obama's nominee to be deputy Interior secretary amid a fight over the agency's new ...
Senate Leaders: Supreme Court Pick "Sometime Soon"
Senate Leaders: Supreme Court Pick "Sometime Soon;" CBS News
There is no shortage of speculation over not only who President Obama will nominate to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter, but also when the announcement will be made. Yet, the White House and Senate Judiciary Committee members remain coy.
This morning, the president met with key members of the Senate, who will be influential in vetting and voting on the future nominee at the White House.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters after his meeting with the president that he expects a nominee "sometime soon."
He added that the process from nomination to confirmation takes about sixty days unless the prospect is particularly “controversial," so the vote should happen before October.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the newly appointed ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, said they had a "nice generalized discussion" with the president and that he hopes for a "unifying nominee" that all committee members can support.
Sessions noted that as a senator, Mr. Obama voted against Bush appointees Samuel Alito and John Roberts but "he did not obstruct or say mean things about them."
"There should not be any perception of ramming this through on some artificial deadlines," Sessions said noting that his committee needs time to prepare for hearings.
Sessions added that Mr. Obama told them that the decision, "wasn't imminent, in a few days" and that "no names" were mentioned in the meeting.
Senate Majority Leader Marry Reid said that they will "do the best" they can for a speedy confirmation though he noted that the Justice Committee is the busiest in the senate.
Meanwhile, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-V Vt.), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told reporters after the meeting that, "the Republicans know that a nominee by President Obama is not a nominee by a President Bush, or if it had been a President McCain." ...
White House Presses For Senate Passage Of Credit Card Bill
White House Presses For Senate Passage Of Credit Card Bill; The Washington Post
The Senate and White House worked feverishly yesterday to ensure passage of a bill that would prohibit many unpopular credit card industry practices, including arbitrary interest rate increases.
Senators debated at least 21 amendments to a bill authored by Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.). One amendment that would have capped interest rates at 15 percent was killed late in the day. ...
Analysts and lawmakers said they expect the Senate bill to pass, especially because Dodd had reached a compromise over the weekend with Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), the senior Republican on the banking committee. ...
Holbrooke Defends Pakistan Funds as Senators Question U.S. Plan
Holbrooke Defends Pakistan Funds as Senators Question U.S. Plan; Bloomberg
Comment: Wow a strategic plan...that Menendez is a sharp guy.
U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke defended requests for further aid to Pakistan and more troops for Afghanistan yesterday as senators took issue with the Obama administration’s plan to defeat extremists.
“We do have a comprehensive strategy” and “we do have benchmarks,” Holbrooke told Senator Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat who said he was skeptical of expanding funding for Pakistan’s military.
“I’m reticent to continuously vote” for more money “without knowing that there is a strategic plan,” Menendez said during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing where concerns were expressed that billions of dollars have been wasted in an unsuccessful fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. “I get no sense of reassurance from what I’ve heard.”
The Obama administration is seeking money to help Pakistan fend off a Taliban insurgency and to support the war effort in neighboring Afghanistan. The U.S. is increasing forces in Afghanistan and on May 11 replaced the top American commander in the country. ...
Comment: Wow a strategic plan...that Menendez is a sharp guy.
Massachusetts Health Model Inspires Sen. Baucus to Greater Idiocy
Mass. health model inspires key senator: Boston Globe
The panel's chairman, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, a Democrat, pointed to the tax exclusion, a rich source of cash. Senators will also consider other ...
Blame Wisconsin
Author John Galt, at the weblog Shenandoah, has an interesting article title “Blame Wisconsin,” which discuss the role progressives from Wisconsin played in the ushering in of the ideal and laws that came to be in 1913, and the linkage to socialism.
Comment: I am not a historian so I won’t evaluate the post on the basis of historical analysis, but I too have always seen the hidden hand of socialism behind the enacting of the 16th and 17th Amendments and the Federal Reserve Act. This article certainly provides an interesting perspective highlighting the ideals that emerged from Wisconsin and found it way into a very contentious place in US History.
The first two were completed quickly in America and the final part can be summed up with the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution where the state’s powers were finally diluted by the use of the direct election of Senators. Senator Robert La Follette was critical in the passage of this amendment and it was long believed it was a reward for his dropping his opposition to the establishment of the Federal Reserve. ...
La Follette never forgave Roosevelt for his actions and this division effectively ended the growth of a viable third party in the United States for decades to come. This splinter and reduction of effectiveness did not destroy the Progressive idealism as it was adopted by many in the Democratic Party and one of the key pieces of legislation which diminished the power of the states, the 17th Amendment, was ushered through the Senate as a tireless part of Senator La Follette’s efforts. With this history behind it, the complexities of the Wisconsin Idea and its expansion from the state level experiments to the national level is quite obvious with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, the 16th, and the 17th Amendments to the Constitution. Progressivism has consequences, two of which we are reminded of every April 15th and every two years with the direct election of Senators. The other consequence is that the idealism behind the use of the education system integrated with economic, administrative and social decisions at every level of government is now a precedent which could take decades to properly segregate to save the Republic. ...
Comment: I am not a historian so I won’t evaluate the post on the basis of historical analysis, but I too have always seen the hidden hand of socialism behind the enacting of the 16th and 17th Amendments and the Federal Reserve Act. This article certainly provides an interesting perspective highlighting the ideals that emerged from Wisconsin and found it way into a very contentious place in US History.
Roger Sherman's Words Concerning the Senate
HT: The Conservative Front
Roger Sherman in a letter to John Adams in July, 1789;
Roger Sherman in a letter to John Adams in July, 1789;
“The senators, being eligible by the legislatures of the several states, and dependent on them for reelection, will be vigilant in supporting their rights against infringement by the legislative or executive of the United States.”
Rethinking The 17th Amendment
Rethinking The 17th Amendment; The Conservative Front
Comment: Please read the rest of this very good article. It should be noted that further into the article the author quotes John MacMullin, who provides one of the best narratives illustrating the loss of check and balance within the federal government, among others.
The formation of a new conservative focus group, the Patrick Henry Caucus, causes me to repost this article, originally written in July of 2004. I think it is important to repost now because of the increasing interest in, and focus on, States’ Rights. For example, Montana has recently passed legislation that would bar the Federal Government from regulating firearms manufactured and kept within Montana’s borders; Utah is considering similar legislation. Texas is is not only working on firearms legislation, but also a bill that would declare Texas a sovereign entity in relation to the Federal government.
All of these are great ideas but, so far, I have not heard anyone proposing the one thing that is essential to any States’ Rights movement–the restoration of representation for the States in the Senate. The repeal of the 17th Amendment will return the Constitution to it’s original form where States’ Rights are recognized at the national level, and I will be proposing such an initiative at the Patrick Henry Caucus formation meeting this Thursday.
The Founders sought to create a system of government based upon checks and balances on power. Their efforts have suffered many attacks in the succeeding 220 years since the adoption of the Constitution. But, in my opinion, none have been so effective at destroying what they sought to accomplish as the 17th Amendment, which reads,
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
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: 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.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
The Constitution originally laid out a very simple, but effective, way to separate the powers of government in the Legislature. They separated the Legislature into two houses–one elected by the people and one appointed by the Legislatures of the several States. Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 reads:
“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.”
Each senator was to be appointed to that position in the national government. This is a very important point that should not be overlooked or misinterpreted. Government appointments are oftentimes construed as a form of corruption. The Founders didn’t think so. In fact, the Senate was to be appointed for the very purpose of preventing corruption. Allow me an explanation.
The members of the House of Representatives are elected, according to the Constitution, by popular vote every two years. This puts them in constant need to be responsive to their constituents if they want to get re-elected. If they aren’t doing what their constituents want, they shouldn’t be re-elected. The short time frame also helps to minimize the damage that could be done to our form of limited government. The combination of short terms, and direct accountability to the people, was intended to create an environment hostile to the creation of Legislation. Congress wasn’t created to “do something” because the Founder’s didn’t want a lot of laws being passed by Congress. In the Federalist #62, Madison and Hamilton argue,
“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow.”
The Senate, on the other hand, was intended to be a deliberative body. The six-year terms would give enough time to accomplish something, while still short enough to keep them in mindfulness of their purpose in being elected. Additionally, because the Senate was appointed by the voice of the Legislatures of the several States, it was hoped the influence of party (or faction) would not become an issue. The current methods used by Senators to get re-elected, i.e. gathering campaign contributions from special interests, would not have been possible previous to the ratification of the 17th Amendment. The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act would be unnecessary under the conditions that obtained under the original program laid out in the Constitution, as the effects the Act was intended to combat would be very difficult to achieve.
The appointment of Senators by the States was meant to assure that the interests of the States were represented in the federal government, a very sticky point for many of the convention delegates. During the New York ratifying convention, Alexander Hamilton sought to comfort the skeptics of the Constitution by pointing out,
“When you take a view of all the circumstance which have been recited, you will certainly see that the senators will constantly look up to the state governments with an eye of dependence and affection. If they are ambitious to continue in office, they will make every prudent arrangement for this purpose, and, whatever may be their private sentiments or politics, they will be convinced that the surest means of obtaining reelection will be a uniform attachment to the interests of their several states.”
Today, we see quite readily that the 17th Amendment has not improved upon that idea.
An example of how the system has been corrupted from its original purpose as a result of the 17th Amendment can be found by examining the campaign contributions of a certain Senator currently serving. Campaign finance records show that Chris Dodd, Democratic Senator from Connecticut, had only five (5) contributors from his home State in the last election. The vast majority of his campaign contributions came from special interests outside his home State. How can he claim to represent the State of Connecticut when he is beholden to other interests? The New Testament points out that “no man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.” The conflict that arises in someone trying to serve two masters was precisely why a system of checks and balances was put in place by the Founders, who understood it’s power as an effective hedge against corruption.
Comment: Please read the rest of this very good article. It should be noted that further into the article the author quotes John MacMullin, who provides one of the best narratives illustrating the loss of check and balance within the federal government, among others.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Florida Gov. Crist Announces Senate Run
Florida Gov. Crist Announces Senate Run; FOXNews
Charlie Crist on Tuesday announced his intention to run for US Senate, in a bid to keep a Republican seat from switching hands next year. ...
Senate Panel Considers Study of Drugs in Water
Senate panel considers study of drugs in water; AP
A proposal in the U.S. Senate would require a government study of pharmaceuticals and personal care products released by factories and other sources into waterways that often supply drinking water. ...
Will cash follow Specter?
Will cash follow Specter?; POLITICO.Com
This from the first commenter, Scalfi:
Comment: Repealing the 17th might not totally fix human nature, but it would put a check and balance back into the US Senate that has been missing since 1913, not to mention the removal of a large amount of money from the process. How naysayers can believe that there was more corruption before 1913 miffs me to no end...
Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter seems confident Pennsylvania voters will follow him on Election Day. But will the political money move, too?
He has a lot of work ahead of him. He’s raised about $9 million for his reelection campaign next year and has about $7 million in the bank.
Given the cost of recent Keystone State Senate races, he’ll need at least another $10 million and more if he winds up with a Democratic primary challenger, said Jennifer Duffy, an expert on Senate races at the Cook Political Report.
Most modern party switchers have managed to fill the void left by disenfranchised donors. Last week, Specter landed Democratic fundraiser Fran Katz Watson, who helped Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman raise cash fast after he lost the 2006 Democratic primary and ran for reelection in the general election as an independent.
But Specter’s shift could produce some unexpected challenges for two reasons: He’s done a full party switch rather than taking a half-step and becoming an independent, and he did it in the midst of the campaign season.
The rise of partisanship in Washington and among party activists has made high-profile, full-party flips less common. They are far more jarring to the political system than independent soft-shoes, the steps chosen by Lieberman and by then-Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords, who was a Republican, in 2001.
This from the first commenter, Scalfi:
20 Million dollars for a frikkin' senate seat?
TWENTY MILLION?!?!
This is why we need to repeal the 17th amendment.... put the selection of senators back in the hands of the state legislatures. Make the senate the more pragmatic and deliberative body our founding fathers intended it to be.
Repealing the 17th amendment would remove the "money influence" from the senate.
Here in Montana... where we have under 1 million voters... Max Baucus spent 6 million.... this just kills me.
Comment: Repealing the 17th might not totally fix human nature, but it would put a check and balance back into the US Senate that has been missing since 1913, not to mention the removal of a large amount of money from the process. How naysayers can believe that there was more corruption before 1913 miffs me to no end...
Senators weigh tax hikes to pay for health care
Senators weigh tax hikes to pay for health care; AP
Comment: Get ready folks and strap yourself on the taxation roller coaster, and in case you are wondering how the ride is going to be, ask our good neighbors Mr. and Mrs. Canada.
Now, do you think if the States had representation in Congress they would be letting this massive piece of socialism to go through?
Senators are considering limiting — but not eliminating — the tax-free status of employer-provided health benefits to help pay for President Barack Obama's plan to provide coverage to 50 million uninsured Americans.
Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said Tuesday that there are no easy options. Senators began grappling with how to finance guaranteed coverage, a cornerstone of Obama's plan to overhaul the health care system. Independent experts put the costs at about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. ...
Comment: Get ready folks and strap yourself on the taxation roller coaster, and in case you are wondering how the ride is going to be, ask our good neighbors Mr. and Mrs. Canada.
Now, do you think if the States had representation in Congress they would be letting this massive piece of socialism to go through?
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Former Top Rated NRA Senator to Introduce Gun Ban This Week
Former Top Rated NRA Senator to Introduce Gun Ban This Week; InfoWars.com
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat and member of the so-called Blue Dog Coalition, plans to introduce an assault weapons ban this week. Gillibrand, the junior senator from New York, was at one time highly rated by the NRA for her advocacy of the Second Amendment.
Newsday claims Gillibrand has “undergone a transformation” over the last three months and has moved away from “her House record that won the NRA’s top rating while remaining a supporter of Second Amendment rights to gun ownership.” Since her Senate appointment, she has “passed just about every test on guns set by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy,” who reintroduced a bill closing the so-called gun-show loophole at a news conference last week.
It appears likely Ms. Gillibrand was a gun-grabber all along and used the Second Amendment as an election ploy. Polls indicate a large percentage of voters strongly support the Second Amendment.
McCarthy’s bill, H.R. 6676, would utilize the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for background checks on all gun store employees and dealers. In addition to H.R. 6676, three other bills have been offered including laws that would make it illegal for known or suspected terrorists to buy guns.
As reported by Infowars last week, the House is currently working on H.R. 2159, The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, sponsored by Rep. Peter King of New York. The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.”
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, told WorldNetDaily the bill will likely be used in junction with the DHS “Rightwing Extremism” report that characterizes advocates of the Second Amendment and others as terrorists. “By those standards, I’m one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano’s terrorists,” Pratt said. “This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they’re all potential terrorists.”...
Senators Agree on ‘Cash for Clunkers’ Auto Plan
Senators Agree on ‘Cash for Clunkers’ Auto Plan; Bloomberg
A group of U.S. senators agreed to a plan that would give consumers as much as $4,500 toward the purchase of a new, fuel-efficient car or truck, Senator Debbie Stabenow said. ...
US senator pledges urgent action on Pakistan
US senator pledges urgent action on Pakistan: AFP
A key US senator pledged quick action on a giant aid package to stabilize Pakistan as a committee cleared an early one billion dollars to support the insurgency-hit US ally.
Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Afghan President Hamid Karzai warned of urgent challenges in a luncheon with members of the US Senate a day after a three-way summit with President Barack Obama.
Obama has pledged a new focus on fighting Taliban and Al-Qaeda extremists in the region. His special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, said the three nations would hold another meeting after Afghanistan's presidential election in August.
Senator John Kerry, head of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Richard Lugar, the ranking member of the minority Republicans, spoke with the leaders about their bill to triple civilian US aid to Pakistan to 7.5 billion dollars over the next five years.
Senators Offer Their Support to F.D.A. Nominee
Senators Offer Their Support to FDA Nominee; New York Times
The Obama administration’s choice to lead the Food and Drug Administration breezed through her Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday while the administration proposed a budget that would give the agency more money.
Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg’s confirmation was all but assured when Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, strongly endorsed her. “I want you to know that I support you,” Mr. Hatch said, “and I intend to help you not only to get through this process but to do your job out there.”
Mr. Hatch’s endorsement was followed by those of Senator Richard M. Burr, Republican of North Carolina, as well as every Democrat at the hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
One reason for the enthusiasm for Dr. Hamburg may be the unease many conservatives have expressed about Dr. Joshua M. Sharfstein, the agency’s acting commissioner, who will become principal deputy commissioner when Dr. Hamburg is confirmed.
Kerlikowske sails through the Senate
Kerlikowske sails through the Senate; AP
After years of overseeing drug-enforcement policies in the Seattle Police Department, former Chief Gil Kerlikowske now will take what he learned to a national stage.
On Thursday, Kerlikowske, as expected, was confirmed by the U.S. Senate to become head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, a position commonly known as "drug czar."
Kerlikowske, a 36-year law-enforcement veteran who has been Seattle's top cop for nine years, has pledged to take a balanced approach to the job using scientific study to shape policy. He also said he will focus on reducing demand for illicit drugs in the United States — a sharp contrast from the Bush administration's focus on intercepting drugs as they cross the border and punishing drug crimes.
Kerlikowske's official last day as police chief was last Friday. Seattle Deputy Chief John Diaz has been named the city's interim chief and said he will seek the job.
The Senate approved Kerlikowske's nomination 91-1, with a nay from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).
Senate Credit Card Meddling Deal Reached
Senate deal on credit card curbs; CNNMoney.com
Comment: Congress did such a great job with the home mortgage regulations and most recently the banking bailout, I have no doubt they’ll do great job regulating the credit card industry too.
But rather than regulate the credit card companies, wouldn’t it be easier to regulate the amount of money a citizen could earn and save and then spend? That way we wouldn’t have any banking problems all. What sayth you Misters Dodd and Frank?
Key Senate negotiators have reached a deal on legislation targeting credit card rates and fees, the lead Democratic senator on the issue said Monday.
The development could spur the bill to a Senate vote as soon as this week, but more fights remain in fully reconciling the Senate bill with an earlier version that passed the House.
A congressional crack down on credit card companies has grown increasingly popular. President Obama and top White House advisers got involved in negotiations a few weeks ago. Obama said Saturday he'd like to have the bill on his desk by Memorial Day.
The office of Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, released a summary of legislation Monday.
Comment: Congress did such a great job with the home mortgage regulations and most recently the banking bailout, I have no doubt they’ll do great job regulating the credit card industry too.
But rather than regulate the credit card companies, wouldn’t it be easier to regulate the amount of money a citizen could earn and save and then spend? That way we wouldn’t have any banking problems all. What sayth you Misters Dodd and Frank?
Monday, May 11, 2009
Schumer's Health Care Compromise
Schumer's health care compromise to face test; Newsday.com
Comment: This is the underhanded way they'll impose socialism.
Schumer offered modifications last week to the controversial proposal to create a government health plan to compete with private insurers in the health insurance market that will be expanded to include all Americans, including the 47 million now without coverage.
"The bottom line is you need somebody who is not a private insurance company to be in the mix," Schumer said last week. "And there are many of us who feel very strongly about that."
His plan will be one of three that will be discussed behind closed doors by the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday.
Calling it "Plan USA," Schumer said it addresses foes' concerns: It must play by the same rules as private insurers, be run separately from the federal entity overseeing the insurance market, and pay health care providers more than Medicare.
Comment: This is the underhanded way they'll impose socialism.
The New State Press Industry
Separation of Press and State; New York Times
Comment: They might lose the so-called "right," but you can bet the media would become the exclusive tool of the incumbent, not that they aren't already.
The first was a hearing convened by Senator John Kerry on Wednesday to air some possible fixes for an entire industry. It’s the kind of session that should bring out rugged coverage from skeptical reporters, except that the business in question was their own.
Given the government’s willingness to bail out stricken industries, it probably seemed reasonable to look at some forms of relief for the news media. James M. Moroney III, executive vice president of A. H. Belo and publisher of The Dallas Morning News, spoke at the hearing, suggesting that the losses of recent years should be put against the earnings of years past and that the industry get special treatment in the form of tax breaks.
While he was at it, Mr. Moroney suggested that the government should pass legislation guaranteeing newspapers “reasonable compensation” from Internet companies that reproduce content without paying for it.
Senator Benjamin L. Cardin, Democrat of Maryland, has introduced a bill he calls the Newspaper Revitalization Act that would treat newspapers as educational nonprofit entities with a kind of tax status similar to churches, hospitals and public broadcasters. In exchange for that most-favored-nation status, the industry would trade in what would seem to be one of the bedrocks of a truly free press, the right to endorse candidates for public office.
Comment: They might lose the so-called "right," but you can bet the media would become the exclusive tool of the incumbent, not that they aren't already.
Back in the Saddle Again
I took some vacation time from work and thought I would continue to blog, but I decided just to take a vacation from that as well. I have to tell you it was good to just forget about the world outside my house for a time. But the battle still marches on out there so it's time to get back on the saddle.
Robert Heinlein once said, “The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” I have no desire to be controlled, so back to blogging.
Robert Heinlein once said, “The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” I have no desire to be controlled, so back to blogging.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)