In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


Karl Denninger wrote:
In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


Karl Denninger wrote:
Convince both legislative bodies and an appropriate number of states to
ratify your view of this matter, and you can have it.

I think we are moving in that direction. There's no reason not to do so.

I don't.

There are plenty of reasons not to do so. The reasons can be found in
places like The Federalist, to start.

There was a real concern that allowing direct presidential elections would
be disasterous. There was also a real concern that allowing direct
SENATORIAL elections would likewise be disasterous.

Yeah, well, there have been lots of concerns the last several hundred
years. Some panned out, some did not.

We now have nearly 100 years of a record on the latter, in the form of the
outrageous expansion of federalism since the 17th Amendment was passed.

Most Americans are satisfied to vote directly for their Senators.

Those who have discovered they can vote themselves a paycheck are often
satisfied with being able to do so.

This does not mean that their satisfaction is well-founded, for if one
destablizes the underlying strength of the republic, there will be nothing
to be satisfied with.

I'll
bet you also oppose women's suffrage, right?

The two issues are completely unrelated, and this gratuitous slam is so much
like you Harry. Why is it you're unable to debate a topic put forward on
the table for consideration, and must instead resort to personal attacks?

The issue is one of the federal government being able to unlawfully (under
the Constitution) to "cram" programs and funding mandates down the state's
throats without their consent.

This was IMPOSSIBLE before the 17th Amendment. Evidence of its effectiveness
is found in the almost complete lack of such laws passed during the first 125
years of our nation's history.

Evidence of the horrific change since then is found in all the programs
crammed down the states' throats SINCE the passage of the 17th Amendment.

The list of such "cramming" involvement since is simply too huge to even
begin to list.

This has been an unmitigated disaster for State and Individual rights.

Sorry, I'm not a fan of state's rights.

Nor individual rights either, I see.

The entire purpose of having two legislative houses is found in the writings
of the founding fathers. They were designed to represented entirely
DIFFERENT constituencies, such that before any federal law could be passed,
or any amendment to the constitution could be passed, that it must first
make it through TWO constituenties, not one.

The House of Representatives was designed for direct election by the several
states for the specific purpose of insuring that THE PEOPLE - individuals -
had a clear and proportional voice in the federal government by the
population of the several states.

The Senate was designed specifically to provide a voice to the STATES - via
their elected legislatures - likewise had an equal voice in the passage of
laws which would bear on the states, or the people.

I am quite sure you remember the founding principle "no taxation without
representation", upon which this nation rested her founding. Indeed, were
it not for the belief that such a principle was inherently necessary
to a just government, the United States would not exist.

Taxation can come in many forms - direct confiscation of money is not the
only way. Indirect confiscation through compulsory spending is yet another
way to effect a tax. Nobody would argue this with more than two firing
neurons - if you were to suddenly find that every road out of your
subdivision was a toll road, you would certainly consider that a tax.

The US bicameral legislature was designed SPECIFICALLY to insure that the
two places that rights are reserved to in the Constitution - the states,
and the people - are BOTH represented in the federal government in a means
that apportions their rights according to population. Each state had an
equal voice in the Senate, and each person had an equal voice in the House.

Passage of the 17th Amendment removed the States ability to be represented
in the Federal Government - and the consequence of this was PRECISELY WHAT
HAPPENED IN THE COLONIES PRIOR TO 1776! By removing the State's ability to
sit at the federal law-making table, it was GUARANTEED that the States
would be taxed without their ability to stop it - and indeed, that is
exactly what happened.

What was not clearly understood at the time, and it is most unfortunate, is
that the 17th Amendment is the one which is likely impossible to repeal.
The reason, of course, is that the Senate would have to vote themselves out
of a job - which is hardly likely.

Unlike every other Constitutional Amendment, the 17th Amendment creates a
"super class" of persons who would have to vote to remove themselves in
order to reverse its effect. For this reason it was the "poison pill" with
regards to the organization of our form of government as originally
envisioned - and the inexorable effect has been clearly seen since,
continuing to this day.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind