It's Our Society, and It's Our Problems To Correct!( posted 8/3/15 )
There is a certain belief that society consists of a group of people that have the same concepts and are united by them to the point of unofficial delusion. Example; Take the myth of George Washington and the Cherry Tree. While it is a good morality instruction for the young, it was also a shared commonality in our society. No adult actually believed it, but it was a comfortable fiction that hurt no one. The takeover Elites have changed that and almost all of our traditions,presenting them as Naivete that needs to be ridiculed and removed by a civilized people, and supplanting their Lies and Spin in place of traditional morality fictions. This started our subsequent downfall to the conditions we are experiencing today..
>
>
Truthfully, a Community ranging from individual small groups, up to a fully populated Nation, is usually a consensus of shared opinions, mutual understanding of moral principles, and the mutually agreed on actions within it, which are acceptable. and those actions which are not acceptable. In short; 'The difference between what is morally Right and Wrong'. Basically it is a dynamic process that can go wrong unless there are some codified rules and regulations the populace agree to voluntarily accept and conform to. The Government leaders must also conform to the codified structure or everything collapses. The stress is and MUST REMAIN AS; 'Voluntarily' for the People, and as 'Mandatory' for the Elected Officials..
>
>
The thing that most often happens is when the concept of what is right is twisted by a sub group within the societal grouping to make the perception of; Right 'Wrong', and Wrong 'Right' to increase their chances of personal gain and power. It is currently alarmingly clear that is what is happening across America, and across the World today. The symptoms are clear and defined. They include a welfare class that can be used and directed by utilizing the disparities between their un-earned lifestyles, and the productive peoples earned lifestyles. The twist comes in with the welfare group being told that the situation is unfair and the productive group is morally obligated to ease their circumstances by taking care of them. Heaven forbid the welfare group should get the necessary training and education to strike out on their own and become a member of the productive class.
>
>
The Elitists for lack of a more descriptive name also work against the productive class by creating an 'Immoral Cadre' of political leaders and biased cabals that attempt to control all the business and productivity, so they may reap most of the rewards for themselves. How many times have you heard or seen someone that has made millions from using the system and then condemning it as immoral and biased against the "Poor"? These same people advocate publicly and emotionally the Productive Class, and the Rich Class ( that is not yet a part of their group ), should be held in contempt and stripped of their earned wealth to compensate for some contrived inequality the poor have not even been given a chance to work for by the self same Elitist controlled group, or an individual sanctioned and trained in agitator methods promoting the agendas of the group who is making those noises.
>
>
The Elites have perfected the art of misdirection and spun rhetoric so thoroughly that the poor and welfare class of people who have been suppressed by those Elites, actually believe the lies and spin are gospel truths, hook line and sinker. This is one of the main reasons why our society has become so warped. If it continues on like this it will be destroyed through the methods the hidden ruling group has set their political conscripts to accomplish in coordination with each other, according to the overall plan the Elites are using for their takeover.
>
>
The Elites don't believe in human rights, unless it's their personal assumed rights that are being cited. For us 'lesser beings' in their world view lexicon, they don't believe there's any thing like a 'God Given Human Right'. Know this, A Right is self evident and cannot be removed. It is also self evident that rights have responsibilities connected to them. The Elites have treated the Welfare poor with a twisted concept of rights that they have rights to almost anything that is made or owned by the producer class but they don't have any responsibilities attached to those rights. This fallacy stems from the Progressive lies and spin that say rights only come from the beneficent Government and then, only if the recipients are willing to march in lockstep with the wishes of the Overlord class that controls them.
>
>
The question that confronts us right now is; What Are We Going To Do To reverse The Situation? We know what has led up to this point,and we know where it will continue on to if not stopped. So, how do we stop it? Better yet, How Do We Get The Diverse Population To Unite Against The Opposition, and Remain Legal and Non-Violent While doing so? We can not afford to ignite violent acts, or use illegal means to our ends, or we become transgressors. Doing so would only bring down the unrelenting wrath of the hidden Overlords through their political toadies and their controlled enforcement agents .
>
>
Therefore, the first thing we have to do is to educate the vast numbers of people who are of a conservative bent with the truth about what has been done to change America over the last hundred years. Then encourage them to deprogram the propagandized and highly biased education their children are getting in public schools. The next thing is to start a counter campaign against the Political Correctness attack on our sensibilities that explains why and how it's being used against American Values and morals.. We can attack that by using logical arguments that are self evident to oppose most of their stylized pernicious rhetoric. Don't forget, the Political Correctness Rhetoric uses a twisted form of our own morality and compassion, and it skews our innate desire to do the right and honorable moral things, by subverting it to the Progressive flavor of the month political agenda. Keep arguments short and to the point. Do not allow them to control the dialogue. Use their techniques against them, those techniques actually work.
>
>
In conclusion;
The best way to make the necessary inroads to their power and control structure is to attack it intellectually on the Political Correctness front by exposing it's innate twisting and manipulation of our basic beliefs and values with the truth. Fight for the Constitutionally protected First Amendment Rights on all forms of speech, not only on the socially acceptable ones the progressive socialists spout as the only correct ones. i.e. Political Opinionated speech that opposes the ones in power's agendas, and the harsh or nasty speech that insults are the types of speech that needs the protection.
>
>
Secondly we need to attack the stolen powers that were never intended to be powers of the central government and return them to the states and to the people. Doing that would entail overturning by repeal the 14th,16th and 17th Amendments by way of a States petitioned for Article V Amendment Convention. We could also address the excesses the Government Leaders have done to weaken America through Treaty and ignoring the Constitutionally enumerated powers. for example, we could propose a Balanced Budget Amendment with penalties for the politicians up to and including the President, Supreme Court,and members of Congress. We could also propose an amendment that sets a simple guideline to stop Federal Justices including the supreme Court from in effect legislating from the bench.
>
>
For those who are afraid of the Constitution being gutted or the convention being hi-jacked by special interest groups because of the inane rhetoric of the mouthpieces for the ones who would lose power remember that citing what happened when the Constitution was created out of a convention to fix the Articles of the Confederation of the Perpetual union of the United States remember they refuse to state that original confederation document had no means within it to make any changes to the body of it. The Constitution however has the means to change it without changing the body of itself, and the Founders trusted the people more than they trusted the continued veracity of the Federal Government.
>
>
Therefore;
The best and only Constitutional way to accomplish what needs be accomplished, is to build up and focus the movement around the concept of restoring the Republic through the auspices of an Article V Convention Of States. It's not too late. Many will out of fear or self interest, will counsel against it. I can't accept their baseless fears, nor can I countenance the Self Serving Interests of those who would lose power from it. Enforcing the Article V provision by the States will give us the necessary basis in Constitutional Law. Once the corrections to the 100 years of Progressive amendments are incorporated through enactment or repeal of certain ones, the Supreme Court will have to agree with us when we rein in the out of control, overblown and overreaching federal government's stolen power, and return it to the States and to the People.
>
>
A parting thought;
Article V of the Constitution.
An Amendment proposal agreed on by the delegates at an article V convention would make damn sure the States should/would/could unite to repeal the 14th,16th,17th amendments along with other desirable changes. Such accomplished, we would return to the balance of separate and equal branches of our government, and we could function as intended once again. The State's powers and the 10th amendment would be restored. Executive actions would be mute. No man or woman could be a king or a queen. And from that foundation where we once started to build a nation, we can begin to restore the Republic our Founders gave to us.
There is a certain belief that society consists of a group of people that have the same concepts and are united by them to the point of unofficial delusion. Example; Take the myth of George Washington and the Cherry Tree. While it is a good morality instruction for the young, it was also a shared commonality in our society. No adult actually believed it, but it was a comfortable fiction that hurt no one. The takeover Elites have changed that and almost all of our traditions,presenting them as Naivete that needs to be ridiculed and removed by a civilized people, and supplanting their Lies and Spin in place of traditional morality fictions. This started our subsequent downfall to the conditions we are experiencing today..
>
>
Truthfully, a Community ranging from individual small groups, up to a fully populated Nation, is usually a consensus of shared opinions, mutual understanding of moral principles, and the mutually agreed on actions within it, which are acceptable. and those actions which are not acceptable. In short; 'The difference between what is morally Right and Wrong'. Basically it is a dynamic process that can go wrong unless there are some codified rules and regulations the populace agree to voluntarily accept and conform to. The Government leaders must also conform to the codified structure or everything collapses. The stress is and MUST REMAIN AS; 'Voluntarily' for the People, and as 'Mandatory' for the Elected Officials..
>
>
The thing that most often happens is when the concept of what is right is twisted by a sub group within the societal grouping to make the perception of; Right 'Wrong', and Wrong 'Right' to increase their chances of personal gain and power. It is currently alarmingly clear that is what is happening across America, and across the World today. The symptoms are clear and defined. They include a welfare class that can be used and directed by utilizing the disparities between their un-earned lifestyles, and the productive peoples earned lifestyles. The twist comes in with the welfare group being told that the situation is unfair and the productive group is morally obligated to ease their circumstances by taking care of them. Heaven forbid the welfare group should get the necessary training and education to strike out on their own and become a member of the productive class.
>
>
The Elitists for lack of a more descriptive name also work against the productive class by creating an 'Immoral Cadre' of political leaders and biased cabals that attempt to control all the business and productivity, so they may reap most of the rewards for themselves. How many times have you heard or seen someone that has made millions from using the system and then condemning it as immoral and biased against the "Poor"? These same people advocate publicly and emotionally the Productive Class, and the Rich Class ( that is not yet a part of their group ), should be held in contempt and stripped of their earned wealth to compensate for some contrived inequality the poor have not even been given a chance to work for by the self same Elitist controlled group, or an individual sanctioned and trained in agitator methods promoting the agendas of the group who is making those noises.
>
>
The Elites have perfected the art of misdirection and spun rhetoric so thoroughly that the poor and welfare class of people who have been suppressed by those Elites, actually believe the lies and spin are gospel truths, hook line and sinker. This is one of the main reasons why our society has become so warped. If it continues on like this it will be destroyed through the methods the hidden ruling group has set their political conscripts to accomplish in coordination with each other, according to the overall plan the Elites are using for their takeover.
>
>
The Elites don't believe in human rights, unless it's their personal assumed rights that are being cited. For us 'lesser beings' in their world view lexicon, they don't believe there's any thing like a 'God Given Human Right'. Know this, A Right is self evident and cannot be removed. It is also self evident that rights have responsibilities connected to them. The Elites have treated the Welfare poor with a twisted concept of rights that they have rights to almost anything that is made or owned by the producer class but they don't have any responsibilities attached to those rights. This fallacy stems from the Progressive lies and spin that say rights only come from the beneficent Government and then, only if the recipients are willing to march in lockstep with the wishes of the Overlord class that controls them.
>
>
The question that confronts us right now is; What Are We Going To Do To reverse The Situation? We know what has led up to this point,and we know where it will continue on to if not stopped. So, how do we stop it? Better yet, How Do We Get The Diverse Population To Unite Against The Opposition, and Remain Legal and Non-Violent While doing so? We can not afford to ignite violent acts, or use illegal means to our ends, or we become transgressors. Doing so would only bring down the unrelenting wrath of the hidden Overlords through their political toadies and their controlled enforcement agents .
>
>
Therefore, the first thing we have to do is to educate the vast numbers of people who are of a conservative bent with the truth about what has been done to change America over the last hundred years. Then encourage them to deprogram the propagandized and highly biased education their children are getting in public schools. The next thing is to start a counter campaign against the Political Correctness attack on our sensibilities that explains why and how it's being used against American Values and morals.. We can attack that by using logical arguments that are self evident to oppose most of their stylized pernicious rhetoric. Don't forget, the Political Correctness Rhetoric uses a twisted form of our own morality and compassion, and it skews our innate desire to do the right and honorable moral things, by subverting it to the Progressive flavor of the month political agenda. Keep arguments short and to the point. Do not allow them to control the dialogue. Use their techniques against them, those techniques actually work.
>
>
In conclusion;
The best way to make the necessary inroads to their power and control structure is to attack it intellectually on the Political Correctness front by exposing it's innate twisting and manipulation of our basic beliefs and values with the truth. Fight for the Constitutionally protected First Amendment Rights on all forms of speech, not only on the socially acceptable ones the progressive socialists spout as the only correct ones. i.e. Political Opinionated speech that opposes the ones in power's agendas, and the harsh or nasty speech that insults are the types of speech that needs the protection.
>
>
Secondly we need to attack the stolen powers that were never intended to be powers of the central government and return them to the states and to the people. Doing that would entail overturning by repeal the 14th,16th and 17th Amendments by way of a States petitioned for Article V Amendment Convention. We could also address the excesses the Government Leaders have done to weaken America through Treaty and ignoring the Constitutionally enumerated powers. for example, we could propose a Balanced Budget Amendment with penalties for the politicians up to and including the President, Supreme Court,and members of Congress. We could also propose an amendment that sets a simple guideline to stop Federal Justices including the supreme Court from in effect legislating from the bench.
>
>
For those who are afraid of the Constitution being gutted or the convention being hi-jacked by special interest groups because of the inane rhetoric of the mouthpieces for the ones who would lose power remember that citing what happened when the Constitution was created out of a convention to fix the Articles of the Confederation of the Perpetual union of the United States remember they refuse to state that original confederation document had no means within it to make any changes to the body of it. The Constitution however has the means to change it without changing the body of itself, and the Founders trusted the people more than they trusted the continued veracity of the Federal Government.
>
>
Therefore;
The best and only Constitutional way to accomplish what needs be accomplished, is to build up and focus the movement around the concept of restoring the Republic through the auspices of an Article V Convention Of States. It's not too late. Many will out of fear or self interest, will counsel against it. I can't accept their baseless fears, nor can I countenance the Self Serving Interests of those who would lose power from it. Enforcing the Article V provision by the States will give us the necessary basis in Constitutional Law. Once the corrections to the 100 years of Progressive amendments are incorporated through enactment or repeal of certain ones, the Supreme Court will have to agree with us when we rein in the out of control, overblown and overreaching federal government's stolen power, and return it to the States and to the People.
>
>
A parting thought;
Article V of the Constitution.
An Amendment proposal agreed on by the delegates at an article V convention would make damn sure the States should/would/could unite to repeal the 14th,16th,17th amendments along with other desirable changes. Such accomplished, we would return to the balance of separate and equal branches of our government, and we could function as intended once again. The State's powers and the 10th amendment would be restored. Executive actions would be mute. No man or woman could be a king or a queen. And from that foundation where we once started to build a nation, we can begin to restore the Republic our Founders gave to us.
Huffington Post Article 04/25/2016 02:41 pm ETThe War Against the 17th AmendmentMax J. SkidmoreLecturer, author, editor, professor.
Source; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-j-skidmore/the-war-against-the-seven_b_9768772.html?ref=yfp
Let's take this HIT PIECE apart, Piece by Propagandized Piece!
A widespread sentiment among more extreme conservatives — including a surprising number of prominent Republican candidates, former candidates, office holders, and former office holders — is that the 17th Amendment should be repealed. That Amendment, ratified in 1913, changed the way of selecting United States senators. It empowered a state’s voters and took the power of selection away from legislatures.
In doing this the Congress that proposed that toxic amendment deliberately took the EQUAL REPRESENTATION away from the States. Before that amendment was pushed off on an unsuspecting and trusting public, the State Legislatures had complete control of their Senators and could demand they do as the State Legislators wanted them to do, and represent the States interests instead of their respective Political Parties as is now the case!
Those advocating repeal no doubt are a minority among Republicans, but they are significant, and are more numerous than one might imagine. They include, among others, Senators Mike Lee of Utah, Jeff Flake of Arizona, and Ted Cruz of Texas (who said that before the 17th Amendment, politicians were less likely to break into your home and steal your television—literally true, of course, because televisions before 1914 were somewhat scarce). Many others are on the list, such as former governors Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, and Rick Perry of Texas; judicial ideologues including U. S. Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, and the late conservative icon Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.
What the writer has failed to say is the very part of the original Constitution contained what is known as either "The Great Compromise" or alternately as the " Connecticut Compromise". That compromise was intended to give each State EQUAL REPRESENTATION in Congress regardless of it's size and population.
Meetings of political scientists often feature panels on “federalism.” These are likely to consist largely (almost entirely, in fact) of bright young ideologues who — fervently, and oh so earnestly — take it for granted that the 17th Amendment dealt such a deathblow that federalism no longer exists.
Make up your own minds on this mis-statement by reading the Federalist papers and the Anti Federalist Papers on the
' www.ArticleVprojecttorestoreliberty.com ' site.
A number of hardcore ideological scholars and journalists back the effort as well. One of those journalists (not scholars) is the one who appears to be the Washington Post‘s “Columnist in Charge of Silly Ideas,” George Will.
Those ideas are only silly because they poke holes in the Progressive/Socialist/Liberal philosophy and show it up for what it truly is; A movement to create an oligarchy in America to be rules by the Power Elites.
Will has written that with legislative choice, America thrived, and the Senate had the “Great Triumvirate,” Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun. He says that under direct election, by contrast, voters elected the ineffable Joseph R. McCarthy.
The only things that thrived under the 17th was the Progressive Liberal growing of the Federal government's power and scope to rule roughshod over the People and the States as it took away one more of the original checks and balances on the Federal Government.
Ignoring whether the arch racist, advocate of slavery as a “positive good,” and secessionist Calhoun was better than the red-baiting McCarthy, a closer look demonstrates that the old system also chose Senator Simon Cameron, who is famed for the supposed comment that “an honest politician is the one who when bought, stays bought,” while the current system brought to the Senate such outstanding figures as William Fulbright, Lyndon Johnson, Edward Kennedy, and (if you will) Richard Russell.
Again, the author keeps harping on the Alinsky buzz words like Racism, a term that by the way was coined to discredit and ridicule those people who opposed Socialism/Communism. Beginning to see the connection?
The able leader Henry Cabot Lodge was chosen under both systems, as was the foul-mouthed racist demagogue, Pitchfork Ben Tillman. Both systems have sent terrible people to the Senate, and excellent ones.
The conservative Ralph Rossum, a capable scholar, studied the issue in his impressive 2001 work, Federalism: the Supreme Court, and the Seventeenth Amendment. He argues that federalism has declined, but is less successful in demonstrating that the 17th Amendment was the cause.
A quick look at the argument of the “repealers” that the 17th Amendment took from the states the power to choose senators reveals that it did no such thing. A state is more than its legislature. Voters, choosing senators by state, express the state’s will at least as fully as legislatures did.
Another Alinsky tactic of ridiculing those opposed ( "Repealers" )to the Progressive Socialist viewpoint and expressing it in terms that suggest those people are moral misfits and social pariahs. It also ignores the real fact that Senators now are mostly more loyal to their respective Political Party's Ideology and agendas, than they are to the People and their States wishes. that is what true Representation is supposed to be.
Every state still has two senators, maintaining equality of states in the Senate. Legislatures never had the ability to control the votes of U.S. senators, and always failed in the rare instances in which they attempted it. Nor did they have the power to instruct senators or to recall senators who violated their “orders.” As a matter of fact, the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected state control in favor of “per capita” voting by senators, and it has never been extraordinary for a state’s two senators to cast different votes.
I venture to ask the author of this hit piece where he got his misinformation, or is it in reality disinformation to twist the minds of his readers? From wikpedia;[OriginallyState legislatures retained the theoretical right to "instruct" their senators to vote for or against proposals, thus giving the states both direct and indirect representation in the federal government. The Senate was part of a formal bicameralism, with the members of the Senate and House responsible to completely distinct constituencies; this helped defeat the problem of the federal government being subject to "special interests]
The founders knew that majorities in legislatures would shift, that they might differ between houses, and that a state’s senators would often vote differently from one another. There is no less incentive now for a senator to vote “in the interests of the state” than there ever was. Thus, the argument from federalism is bogus.
Hogwash. The Political Parties and their Ideology and agendas now control what most of the Establishment Progressive Senators say and do. All you have to do is to look closely at the Fiasco of the last 50 years to see that.
It should also be noted, that it was state legislatures that had chosen every senator who voted to propose the 17th Amendment. It was also state legislatures themselves who voted to ratify it. In fact legislatures in 41 of the 48 states decided to ratify the Amendment, far more than the required three-fourths of the total.
Very much information can be found to refute that statement at; http://themonkeycage.org/2013/05/why-did-state-legislators-give-away-their-power-to-pick-senators-on-the-origins-of-the-17th-amendment/ and at; http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/10/24/repeal-the-17th-amendment/ and here; https://mises.org/library/repeal-17th just to name three. There are many more out there that totally refutes the author's statements.
What, then, is the real motivation behind the demand for repeal, when its likelihood of passage is so remote? There certainly is no outcry from the people of the United States demanding a measure that would strip them of their votes for their senators. In all probability, the fundamental motivation that masks itself as an effort to restore a vanished federal system is actually a covert grab for power.
Typical spin combined with deliberate misdirection that ignores the single most important fact concerning this argument; The House Is The Peoples Representative. The Senate was intended to strictly and solely represent the legitimate interests of the States. The States interests were supposed to be controlled by the citizens of those States controlling their Elected Representatives in their State Legislatures thus keeping the chain of command firmly in the Peoples Hands like was intended by the Founders and Framers of the Constitution.
Consider two things: first, conservatives tend to believe, probably correctly, that large voter turnouts are detrimental to their interests; second, it is possible to gerrymander a state to create districts that defeat majorities, but it is impossible to gerrymander a whole state. Thus, if there were no 17th Amendment, conservatives believe that they might be able to control the selection of U.S. senators even against majority preference. Long-term demographic trends are opposed to them and their ideology, so they desperately try anything they can think of to retain minority power.
This statement ( if there were no 17th Amendment, conservatives believe that they might be able to control the selection of U.S. senators even against majority preference. ) flies in the face of what is written within the Constitution prior to the 17th amendment. In fact my considered opinion on this is just the opposite, that the progressives have a greater chance of controlling the election of Senators under the 17th amendment's auspices.
They increase obstacles to voting across the board. Whenever possible, they even deny the vote to as many people as possible. They are notorious in their attempts to restrict citizenship to keep the electorate as small as they can. They treat elites ever more favorably, and now, however much it may simply be grasping at straws, they seek to return selection of senators to state legislatures. Their motivation is therefore less related to federalism, than to power.
This entire statement is a direct, blatant, and express move to discredit any attempts to stop Voter Fraud, and thwart any attempt to keep elections as clean as possible. Historically, I believe that Fraudulent totals have always benefited the Progressive Liberal factions over the conservatives. I ask the author why the Progressive Democratic Socialists ( popularly known as Democrats ) who are co-members of the Democratic Socialist Party and concurrently are members that make up the entirety of the Democratic Caucus, have had a ruling from a judge who by the way is retires but comes back to the bench one day every year to reinstate his ruling, preventing the GOP from even investigating any suspected voter fraud or intimidation at the polls?
These are my considered opinions on the subject of the 17th amendment. When will American Citizens wake up to the fact they are being played by the Progressive Elites who seemingly want to destroy the American exceptionalism along with the republic to institute a Socialist Oriented Society that will only serve the Elites as an Oligarchy?
The Tradesman
Source; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-j-skidmore/the-war-against-the-seven_b_9768772.html?ref=yfp
Let's take this HIT PIECE apart, Piece by Propagandized Piece!
A widespread sentiment among more extreme conservatives — including a surprising number of prominent Republican candidates, former candidates, office holders, and former office holders — is that the 17th Amendment should be repealed. That Amendment, ratified in 1913, changed the way of selecting United States senators. It empowered a state’s voters and took the power of selection away from legislatures.
In doing this the Congress that proposed that toxic amendment deliberately took the EQUAL REPRESENTATION away from the States. Before that amendment was pushed off on an unsuspecting and trusting public, the State Legislatures had complete control of their Senators and could demand they do as the State Legislators wanted them to do, and represent the States interests instead of their respective Political Parties as is now the case!
Those advocating repeal no doubt are a minority among Republicans, but they are significant, and are more numerous than one might imagine. They include, among others, Senators Mike Lee of Utah, Jeff Flake of Arizona, and Ted Cruz of Texas (who said that before the 17th Amendment, politicians were less likely to break into your home and steal your television—literally true, of course, because televisions before 1914 were somewhat scarce). Many others are on the list, such as former governors Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, and Rick Perry of Texas; judicial ideologues including U. S. Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, and the late conservative icon Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.
What the writer has failed to say is the very part of the original Constitution contained what is known as either "The Great Compromise" or alternately as the " Connecticut Compromise". That compromise was intended to give each State EQUAL REPRESENTATION in Congress regardless of it's size and population.
Meetings of political scientists often feature panels on “federalism.” These are likely to consist largely (almost entirely, in fact) of bright young ideologues who — fervently, and oh so earnestly — take it for granted that the 17th Amendment dealt such a deathblow that federalism no longer exists.
Make up your own minds on this mis-statement by reading the Federalist papers and the Anti Federalist Papers on the
' www.ArticleVprojecttorestoreliberty.com ' site.
A number of hardcore ideological scholars and journalists back the effort as well. One of those journalists (not scholars) is the one who appears to be the Washington Post‘s “Columnist in Charge of Silly Ideas,” George Will.
Those ideas are only silly because they poke holes in the Progressive/Socialist/Liberal philosophy and show it up for what it truly is; A movement to create an oligarchy in America to be rules by the Power Elites.
Will has written that with legislative choice, America thrived, and the Senate had the “Great Triumvirate,” Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun. He says that under direct election, by contrast, voters elected the ineffable Joseph R. McCarthy.
The only things that thrived under the 17th was the Progressive Liberal growing of the Federal government's power and scope to rule roughshod over the People and the States as it took away one more of the original checks and balances on the Federal Government.
Ignoring whether the arch racist, advocate of slavery as a “positive good,” and secessionist Calhoun was better than the red-baiting McCarthy, a closer look demonstrates that the old system also chose Senator Simon Cameron, who is famed for the supposed comment that “an honest politician is the one who when bought, stays bought,” while the current system brought to the Senate such outstanding figures as William Fulbright, Lyndon Johnson, Edward Kennedy, and (if you will) Richard Russell.
Again, the author keeps harping on the Alinsky buzz words like Racism, a term that by the way was coined to discredit and ridicule those people who opposed Socialism/Communism. Beginning to see the connection?
The able leader Henry Cabot Lodge was chosen under both systems, as was the foul-mouthed racist demagogue, Pitchfork Ben Tillman. Both systems have sent terrible people to the Senate, and excellent ones.
The conservative Ralph Rossum, a capable scholar, studied the issue in his impressive 2001 work, Federalism: the Supreme Court, and the Seventeenth Amendment. He argues that federalism has declined, but is less successful in demonstrating that the 17th Amendment was the cause.
A quick look at the argument of the “repealers” that the 17th Amendment took from the states the power to choose senators reveals that it did no such thing. A state is more than its legislature. Voters, choosing senators by state, express the state’s will at least as fully as legislatures did.
Another Alinsky tactic of ridiculing those opposed ( "Repealers" )to the Progressive Socialist viewpoint and expressing it in terms that suggest those people are moral misfits and social pariahs. It also ignores the real fact that Senators now are mostly more loyal to their respective Political Party's Ideology and agendas, than they are to the People and their States wishes. that is what true Representation is supposed to be.
Every state still has two senators, maintaining equality of states in the Senate. Legislatures never had the ability to control the votes of U.S. senators, and always failed in the rare instances in which they attempted it. Nor did they have the power to instruct senators or to recall senators who violated their “orders.” As a matter of fact, the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected state control in favor of “per capita” voting by senators, and it has never been extraordinary for a state’s two senators to cast different votes.
I venture to ask the author of this hit piece where he got his misinformation, or is it in reality disinformation to twist the minds of his readers? From wikpedia;[OriginallyState legislatures retained the theoretical right to "instruct" their senators to vote for or against proposals, thus giving the states both direct and indirect representation in the federal government. The Senate was part of a formal bicameralism, with the members of the Senate and House responsible to completely distinct constituencies; this helped defeat the problem of the federal government being subject to "special interests]
The founders knew that majorities in legislatures would shift, that they might differ between houses, and that a state’s senators would often vote differently from one another. There is no less incentive now for a senator to vote “in the interests of the state” than there ever was. Thus, the argument from federalism is bogus.
Hogwash. The Political Parties and their Ideology and agendas now control what most of the Establishment Progressive Senators say and do. All you have to do is to look closely at the Fiasco of the last 50 years to see that.
It should also be noted, that it was state legislatures that had chosen every senator who voted to propose the 17th Amendment. It was also state legislatures themselves who voted to ratify it. In fact legislatures in 41 of the 48 states decided to ratify the Amendment, far more than the required three-fourths of the total.
Very much information can be found to refute that statement at; http://themonkeycage.org/2013/05/why-did-state-legislators-give-away-their-power-to-pick-senators-on-the-origins-of-the-17th-amendment/ and at; http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/10/24/repeal-the-17th-amendment/ and here; https://mises.org/library/repeal-17th just to name three. There are many more out there that totally refutes the author's statements.
What, then, is the real motivation behind the demand for repeal, when its likelihood of passage is so remote? There certainly is no outcry from the people of the United States demanding a measure that would strip them of their votes for their senators. In all probability, the fundamental motivation that masks itself as an effort to restore a vanished federal system is actually a covert grab for power.
Typical spin combined with deliberate misdirection that ignores the single most important fact concerning this argument; The House Is The Peoples Representative. The Senate was intended to strictly and solely represent the legitimate interests of the States. The States interests were supposed to be controlled by the citizens of those States controlling their Elected Representatives in their State Legislatures thus keeping the chain of command firmly in the Peoples Hands like was intended by the Founders and Framers of the Constitution.
Consider two things: first, conservatives tend to believe, probably correctly, that large voter turnouts are detrimental to their interests; second, it is possible to gerrymander a state to create districts that defeat majorities, but it is impossible to gerrymander a whole state. Thus, if there were no 17th Amendment, conservatives believe that they might be able to control the selection of U.S. senators even against majority preference. Long-term demographic trends are opposed to them and their ideology, so they desperately try anything they can think of to retain minority power.
This statement ( if there were no 17th Amendment, conservatives believe that they might be able to control the selection of U.S. senators even against majority preference. ) flies in the face of what is written within the Constitution prior to the 17th amendment. In fact my considered opinion on this is just the opposite, that the progressives have a greater chance of controlling the election of Senators under the 17th amendment's auspices.
They increase obstacles to voting across the board. Whenever possible, they even deny the vote to as many people as possible. They are notorious in their attempts to restrict citizenship to keep the electorate as small as they can. They treat elites ever more favorably, and now, however much it may simply be grasping at straws, they seek to return selection of senators to state legislatures. Their motivation is therefore less related to federalism, than to power.
This entire statement is a direct, blatant, and express move to discredit any attempts to stop Voter Fraud, and thwart any attempt to keep elections as clean as possible. Historically, I believe that Fraudulent totals have always benefited the Progressive Liberal factions over the conservatives. I ask the author why the Progressive Democratic Socialists ( popularly known as Democrats ) who are co-members of the Democratic Socialist Party and concurrently are members that make up the entirety of the Democratic Caucus, have had a ruling from a judge who by the way is retires but comes back to the bench one day every year to reinstate his ruling, preventing the GOP from even investigating any suspected voter fraud or intimidation at the polls?
These are my considered opinions on the subject of the 17th amendment. When will American Citizens wake up to the fact they are being played by the Progressive Elites who seemingly want to destroy the American exceptionalism along with the republic to institute a Socialist Oriented Society that will only serve the Elites as an Oligarchy?
The Tradesman
We Have The Progressive Socialist Liberals Running Scared Of This Idea That's Catching On!
