There are few things that irk me more than watching good people argue over what to do in order to restore our nation to a constitutional republic. Why does this irk me? Mainly, because no matter what is being argued, or who is victorious or not victorious, nothing will change. Nothing!
And why does nothing change even though good people discuss good things? Mainly, because no matter how good the idea, how detailed, or how constitutional, people don’t really get involved. Instead, people rely on other “better” people to do things for them. They expect career politicians to suddenly do an about-face and act as if they have original fire. They expect the media to “see the light” and begin to give a fair shake to all sides. But this will never happen, and that is the fact.
So why do people rely on “better” people who will never do as they ought? Basically, people don’t have enough confidence to do it themselves. Oh, you may hear that someone hasn’t enough time, or intellect, or education, but all that equates to low confidence. So it is left to those who have been elected, appointed, or born into position to benefit the “little guy” with big wide eyes.
This is why we have elections. The official elected is supposed to be on the side of the voters who brought them to the dance. But often this is not the case. The representative votes “conscience” rather than constituency. If this happens in the House of Representatives, the people can change their minds over the course of a brief two years. But if this happens in the Senate, the people must wait six years. Six.. long.. years. That’s longer than a Presidential term!
When the Constitution was fashioned, every Senator was controlled by a State legislature. If the Senator did not vote the way the State legislature wanted, the Senator might be recalled, and a new Senator installed. In this way, the States controlled the Senate. The people, by virtue of having greater access to their State legislators, also had more impact on Senators than they presently do.
The States therefore controlled the way Senators voted. How important is this?
Bills originate in the House, but are verified in the Senate. This gives the people origination rights, and States verification rights, making a very nice marriage. Let’s say the President vetoes such a bill. A Senate controlled by the States is much more likely to override a Presidential veto. Think about that! We have “gridlock” in Congress due to the whims of Senators, who are federal officials, not due to whims of the States. We are ruled by kings, not legislatures! Override power reduces gridlock and eliminates such kings.
If a Senator should not cooperate with the wishes of a State, that Senator is only going to get one such whimsy before being recalled. Think about that! States controlling their own destinies, and the path the United States takes!
And if a President, called, say, Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, acted in an unconstitutional manner, impeachment is not controlled by the kings of Washington DC, but by the States, through the Senators, provided of course the House originates such impeachment.
The same goes for the Supreme Court, or any other federal judge. The Senate can impeach in exactly the same manner!
But the 17th Amendment to the Constitution changed all that. Rather than Senators being controlled by the States, they were thereafter elected by the people, and the States lost their power over Senators! Why on Earth would the States vote for such an Amendment to the Constitution? I really have no idea, but I do know it occurred in the Wilsonian era, right after the 16th Amendment was ratified! Talk about Communists taking over!
Read this article to learn more about the circumstances, and other nauseating things.
Hear now my list of demands!
Repeal the 17th Amendment, and send the power of the Senate back to the States. This will put the power of the Congress back into the hands of the States, the budget on the right track, enable override of vetoes with greater ease, and promote good government with a more potent threat of impeachments.
OK, now let me tell you why this is not going to happen:
(1) There must be a type of convention to propose such an Amendment (unless the Amendment is put forward by Congress, see below),
(2) There must be 34 States to sign onto such a convention,
(3) There are massive naysayer movements against any such convention,
(4) There is a public perception that Congress must be involved in the process, and Congress exploits this perception in propaganda,
(5) If a convention is called, the repeal of XVII still has to make the agenda process, and be proposed into a vote agenda,
(6) At least 38 States must agree to ratify such an Amendment.
Obviously, we have ratified 27 Amendments to the Constitution, so it’s possible. However, there have been zero State-called conventions, due to misperceptions and propaganda, and just plain State unwillingness. Instead, it has been Congress which has (constitutionally) called all such Amendment conventions.
And why would Congress ever propose to repeal XVII when they enjoy so much power?
And why would States ever propose to repeal XVII when the propaganda is that whoever proposes such thing is a nut?
But read the article I’ve linked for you. And Google the rest. You will see that repealing XVII is about the simplest and surest way to reduce the growth of the federal government, and to restore power to the States. Of course, the States can invoke Amendment X, but that has been limp also, historically speaking.
I think then the only way to repeal XVII is for conservatives to actively and persistently run for State legislatures, and take over with the intention to restore the United States. Pie in the sky? Yeah.
Are there alternatives?
Well, XVII can’t be repealed without a Constitutional amendment. However, there are other things we the people can do. We can demand righteousness by the Constitution. We can vote. We can run for office. We can organize communities with great vigor. We can demand recall of horrid elected officials. We can take over as editors of news organizations. We can nullify laws through certain means.
And though many will say what I propose is foolhardy because “it opens us up to all sorts of communist tricks,” my answer is that (1) we already experience communism openly, and (2) if it were that easy for the communists, we’d already be sunk.
I say this nation is conservative at heart, and we need to rise up and make ourselves heard in every way possible!
In closing, I simply ask that you don’t attack the messenger (me). The convention to propose and ratify Amendments is in the Constitution, so, yes, it is constitutional. Some say it is not necessary. Others say it’s not the right time. Well, when is the right time? Tell me the right time so I can set my watch for it. No, friends, it is always the right time to stand up for constitutional authority and power, to rein in overbearing executive power, to rid ourselves of mealy-mouthed representatives and Senators, and impeach corrupt and elitist judges. I’m not saying repealing XVII will solve all, or even most, of our problems, but I am not backing down from the fact that repealing XVII restores our Constitution.
Become an insider!
Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.