Repeal The 17th Amendment
ANOTHER reason to vote for Ron Paul. And, if you understand it, a good argument to provide your friends.
Originally all Senators were elected by each State's elected officials. United States Senators were accountable to the State Governments that elected them and sent them to Washington to represent them. But the 17th Amendment changed that. Now, as we know, Senators are elected by popular vote. They no longer must answer to their own state government. And they have FAR too much power because of it.
Dr Paul, along with a few others such as Zell Miller, Alan Keyes, Harry Brown, Lew Rockwell and Neil Boortz, have advocated the repeal of the 17th Amendment for a long time.
Zell Miller introduced a constitutional amendment, just after announcing his retirement, to repeal the 17th Amendment, saying, "it gives too much power to Washington's special interests and it's an attack on federalism."
Whether Ron Paul gets elected or not, it's THESE issues that THIS MOVEMENT was born for...
A structural fix is required.
What is important to remember about repealing the 17th is that it presents an essential STRUCTURAL fix. Generally speaking, voters believe that better politicians and better laws will solve most of society's problems, but fail to realize that the present concerns (government intrusion on liberty, financial insolvency, direct democracy) are the inevitable results of structural damage, and not transient bruises that can be addressed with a series of good elections. We have these problems in America precisely because there is no other alternative given our constitution as amended. ONLY a structural fix (repealing the 17th and returning the Senate to its historically and philosophically appropriate function) will provide us a framework within which order is restored.
Here is a website I maintain on the subject:
http://www.restorefederalism.org
Here is the link to my
Here is the link to my article entitled The 17th Amendment and the Nationalized Senate, I will bump.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/66252
http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
Repeal the 14th
that's the one that gives corporations "personhood". And of course, if it really were a person, it would be a psychopath.
We could just go back to the Real 14th
....TONA
Explore Orthodox Christianity
While we are at it , Repeal the 16th as well
Disband the IRS. ;)
Libera me, let the truth break, what my fears make--Leslie Phillips
But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or the left...F. A.Schaeffer
Why don't we amend the 16th amendment.
Revenue from income taxes shall only be used to amortize the national debt or to pay for military expenditures during war.
Further expansion of the national debt shall only occur to pay for military expenditures during war.
Because a tax on a individual's work for pay is against...
wisdom and frugality (not to mention prudence).
A wise and prudent government does not take bread from the mouth of the laborer - Thomas Jefferson
Libera me, let the truth break, what my fears make--Leslie Phillips
But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or the left...F. A.Schaeffer
Good luck charging a "user
Good luck charging a "user fee" for military expenditures if the US should get invaded.
Time to revive this thread-education time
Nullification of the 17th Amendment would do a world of good for our country. I think that goal is way more important than whomever becomes president. All DailyPaulers should get up to speed on this subject. Cleaning the corrupt Senate should be high priority for the Campaign for Liberty. A comment below by pchanson including reading his blog post would be a great starting point for your education.
I agree with y'all. This is
I agree with y'all. This is one of the major roadblocks standing in the way of implementing what RP stands for. We must have the states restored to thier rightful component of power.
Yep
Totally agree. That would be brilliant if it happened. Perhaps we Paulites can throw ourselves into that after RP is nominated?
"What does conservatism today stand for? It stands for war. It stands for power. It stands for spying, jailing without trial, torture, counterfeiting without limit, and lying from morning to night."
Lew Rockwell
Don't repeal it, repudiate it.
A repeal will never happen and I have laid out the reasons why in an article I wrote on the 17th. There is a way to get rid of it though. The way to get rid of it is for one state that never ratified it (any of these 10:FL, MS, DE, KY, UT, MD, RI, AL, IA and GA) to stand up and declare it invalid, because it is in fact invalid. Here's why, this is the last clause of article 5 of the U.S. Constitution (the portion that allows for amendments):
"and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
The above 10 states never "consented." The courts can't even challenge it and my article explains why.
Here is the link:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&frien...
Before challenging me on this issue, please read the article because it probably already answers any possible challenge anyone may have.
Sincerely,
Paul C. Hanson
Uh, ok
you've obv. done your homework. Don't expect anyone to challenge you on this issue since this forum is more about getting Ron Paul elected than debating the technicalities of the 17th Amendment. Either way, repeal or repudaite, the 17th Amendment goes, no?
Sure hope so
I sure hope so because as I see it, it was the single biggest blow to the concept of federalism to have ever come about. Maybe even the biggest blow to the Republic in general.
And as for your remarks about the purpose of this forum, you may want to reassess that thought especially since YOU posted this thread in the first place. You post a thread on the 17th and then hammer ME for talking about the 17th?? They have a cure for that... Lithium.
Ron Paul's position on the 17th is that it needs to be removed. That fact was actually on his wiki site several months ago (which has since been edited). Seems there was an article in a NH paper that quoted him on it and it was referenced on his wiki site. Therefore, since it is a position of our candidate, should we not be informed on all aspects of the subject, including the fact that it was never a valid amendment in the first place? Also, if you'll notice in your original comments, you said it could be used to help garner support for Ron. Does the fact that it could be used to garner support pass your stringent applicability test? It must have or YOU wouldn't have posted it in the first place. In any case, I have some chilling news for you. Whether it does or doesn't pass your test, I'll talk about it on here anyway. Thanks for bring it up BTW, as it just happens to be one of my favorite topics. If you have any further objections on the applicability issue, take it up with a moderator, not me.
Paul.