0
How Woodrow Wilson Progressives Destroyed States Rights
Posted by Timothy Smith
on
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Nearly 100 years ago, a newly elected president signed off on the 17th amendment thereby sending it to each state for ratification. The amendment was ratified with amazing speed by the required number of states. Clearly, serious injury was inflicted upon the founders' vision of the United States and has never been more evident than in the 2008 election cycle. What went wrong? Direct election of Senators sounded like such a good idea. Even today many people would, at first glance, say being able to directly elect their Senators is a good thing. However, as Thomas DiLorenzo explains, the 17th amendment has been a national nightmare. Time to wake up!
The election cycle of 2008 provides an excellent example of why the 17th amendment should be repealed. Consider Exhibit 1: Max Baucus, Democrat from Montana. The good people of Big Sky country need to know that he has no concern in looking out for the interests of Montana. Why? Watch this commercial:
Ninety-one percent of donations from outside Montana
When almost every dollar of campaign contributions comes from those who could care less about what's good for the state of Montana - is the august Baucus of the same attitude? His health care boondoggle of a bill requires all citizens to obtain health insurance. The penalty for not doing so is a fine of up to $25,000, a year in jail, or both. Stick with me here: Mr. or Mrs. Montana Citizen is found to be in violation of the law written by their own senator. The judge declares them guilty, and stipulates a sale of all or a portion of their assets to pay the fine, and places them on probation. If Mr. or Mrs. Montana Citizen does not obtain health insurance by a certain date then they will be sent to prison for one year. Senator Max Baucus could not be reached for comment regarding the plight of his "boss," a citizen who voted for him. Max Baucus' arrogant condescending behavior regarding his health care bill illustrates the tyranny of direct election of senators. He doesn't have to answer to the people of Montana since the state of Montana is not funding his seat at the table.
If, as the Constitution originally proscribed, direct election of senators was forbidden, then the Montana state legislature would appoint someone to represent the state's rights and interests in Washington, D.C. There would be no contributions from outside the state, no long reelection campaigns to draw him or her away from the state's concerns, no lifetime career arrogance. Each senator would be sent to the nation's capital funded by the state they represent rather than by campaign donations from who knows where. With each state having a vested and exclusive interest in their senators the likelihood of arrogant gasbags growing ever more disdainful of "the chattering class" that elected them, to quote Chuck Schumer, would be near zero.
The American Thinker has posted an excellent review of the original intent and reasons for senators being appointed rather than directly elected. Senators were meant to be ambassadors from the states. Since ratification of the 17th amendment in 1914 corruption, the supposed reason for approving the change to direct elections for senators, malfeasance if not outright breaking of the laws has increased exponentially.
In this era where state legislatures are trumpeting state sovereignty under the 10th amendment we should also demand that the 17th amendment is repealed so that perhaps the greatest states right of all is returned to each state.
|
The election cycle of 2008 provides an excellent example of why the 17th amendment should be repealed. Consider Exhibit 1: Max Baucus, Democrat from Montana. The good people of Big Sky country need to know that he has no concern in looking out for the interests of Montana. Why? Watch this commercial:
Ninety-one percent of donations from outside Montana
When almost every dollar of campaign contributions comes from those who could care less about what's good for the state of Montana - is the august Baucus of the same attitude? His health care boondoggle of a bill requires all citizens to obtain health insurance. The penalty for not doing so is a fine of up to $25,000, a year in jail, or both. Stick with me here: Mr. or Mrs. Montana Citizen is found to be in violation of the law written by their own senator. The judge declares them guilty, and stipulates a sale of all or a portion of their assets to pay the fine, and places them on probation. If Mr. or Mrs. Montana Citizen does not obtain health insurance by a certain date then they will be sent to prison for one year. Senator Max Baucus could not be reached for comment regarding the plight of his "boss," a citizen who voted for him. Max Baucus' arrogant condescending behavior regarding his health care bill illustrates the tyranny of direct election of senators. He doesn't have to answer to the people of Montana since the state of Montana is not funding his seat at the table.
If, as the Constitution originally proscribed, direct election of senators was forbidden, then the Montana state legislature would appoint someone to represent the state's rights and interests in Washington, D.C. There would be no contributions from outside the state, no long reelection campaigns to draw him or her away from the state's concerns, no lifetime career arrogance. Each senator would be sent to the nation's capital funded by the state they represent rather than by campaign donations from who knows where. With each state having a vested and exclusive interest in their senators the likelihood of arrogant gasbags growing ever more disdainful of "the chattering class" that elected them, to quote Chuck Schumer, would be near zero.
The American Thinker has posted an excellent review of the original intent and reasons for senators being appointed rather than directly elected. Senators were meant to be ambassadors from the states. Since ratification of the 17th amendment in 1914 corruption, the supposed reason for approving the change to direct elections for senators, malfeasance if not outright breaking of the laws has increased exponentially.
In this era where state legislatures are trumpeting state sovereignty under the 10th amendment we should also demand that the 17th amendment is repealed so that perhaps the greatest states right of all is returned to each state.
|
Post a Comment