Consciousness doesn't grow from being told facts, it grows from the search for them!
What Needs Change
- 17th Amendment
- 16th Amendment
BLM Land Grab
How They Did It
+How They Did It
Politics & Voting
Nat Pop Vote
Dem vs GOP
+Character Issues in America
Slaves You Say
What Needs Change - 17th Amendment Tweet Last: 10/20/2014
Thanks to Arizona Freedom Alliance - RICHARD LEE
Originally the Constitution read;
Article 1, Section 3
Revised 17th Amendment
Please note that Amendment 17 only adjusts the first and second paragraph of Article 3. All other values in being a Senator remaining.
It was only the first sentence changed and that adjustment effectively remands the 10TH Amendment to the trash heap.
Now, let us get into the reasons of implementing the 17th amendment.
With the 17th amendment going to a popular vote, it allowed the Senate, as a whole, to pass or reject bills that would not necessarily be accepted by the individual state. Individual Senators were not required to vote the will of their respective state. They also realize they can not be recalled or fired by their respective state.
The Senator was no longer beholding to the State and their Legislature. That becoming an individual vote for sale. The State could do nothing to stop that action because their right to appoint was also a right to remand by having the Senator return and explain his actions to the State Assembly. Dismissal from that position was incorporated into many State Constitutions. Some State Constitutions required the appointed Senator to give a synopsis of what their actions were in the given year they were in Washington. A full gathering of the State Senate and Assembly would be on hand to hear their statement. Some State Constitutions required that the Senator vote only thru approval of their respective assemblies.
An example - The Affordable Care Act
Even though this bill passed by one vote in the Senate, that being 51 Democrats, the makeup of the States were 28 Red 22 Blue. Under the original Article 1 Para 3 Section 1, the Senate would have had to vote under the direction of the State, the ACA would have never passed.
When a person has more than their allotted time in any Service, it makes it easier for that person to learn how to cheat and do just enough in Bills to accommodate the voter. Hence you will see more Senators in Congress longer than Congressmen. Congressmen are elected every two years, while items that have been accomplished by the Congressman are still fresh in the mind's of voters. There are a few, but most are voted out within 14, 16 years. The Senator, being elected every six years has only to be on the good side for two years, the other four will not be investigated by we the people for the most part, because we just don’t think about it. Take a small poll among your friends and work associates, When is John 'the Songbird' McCain and his protege Jeffy Flake up for re-election? The results will surely surprise you. Even people who follow politics have no clue until they start seeing election material in their mail and on the idiot box
Reply by Eduard Goheen
The founders’ Constitution was crafted for the States’ Representatives to Congress to be elected by the people – who might not be fully informed as to the qualifications of each candidate and whose opinion might be easily swayed by the news media, the money of big campaign donors, and even out-of-state Super PACs. The States’ U.S. Senators, on the other hand, were to be chosen by deliberation of the people who had been elected by the populace to represent them in the State Legislature. These State Legislators would have more knowledge of the legal and economic issues confronting the State and they would be much better acquainted than the general populace with the abilities of the Senators they selected. The selection process would be conducted in an atmosphere much less influenced by the media or by campaign tactics.
Thus, one house of Congress would be elected by the democratic system of direct popular vote, and the other house of Congress selected by the system of a representative republicanism. The House of Representatives would represent the people of the States. The Senate would represent the governments of the individual States (who were also elected by the people of the states) and protect the rights of their State. Think of it as having both labor (the peoples’ House) AND management (the States’ Senate) sit down at the table to agree on work rules - not just labor dictating and not just management dictating – but the two sides working together to come up with suitable rules. This was the balance decided upon by our founding fathers.
ANY issue settled by a democratic popular vote election is likely to be settled on an emotional basis - think big buck attack and counterattack campaigns (called POLITICS). This is why our founding fathers did not want both houses of Congress selected by POLITICS. In addition, the 17th amendment took away the ability of State Legislatures to influence Federal policy. Thus, we citizens of the States are now ruled almost entirely by the non-elected bureaucrats of Federal agencies and we are virtually powerless to do anything about it.