Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Contrary to the graduates of Beck University, the movement to elect members of the Senate traces its origins to 1826, with the first proposal being introduced to the House in 1870, long before the formation of the "Progressive Movement".
So before we get all hot and bothered about the 17th Amendment, perhaps a review of the history of why the amendment was introduced and ratified by 38 of the 48 state legislatures.
I always find it interesting that when confronted by historical facts regarding the founding of the Constitution or the enactment of its amendments such threads become deadly silent.
I always find it interesting that when confronted by historical facts regarding the founding of the Constitution or the enactment of its amendments such threads become deadly silent.
That's because nobody truly wants either the truth or understanding, on either side of the aisle.
They'd rather feel the emotion of outrage. It makes them feel useful.
Contrary to the graduates of Beck University, the movement to elect members of the Senate traces its origins to 1826, with the first proposal being introduced to the House in 1870, long before the formation of the "Progressive Movement".
So before we get all hot and bothered about the 17th Amendment, perhaps a review of the history of why the amendment was introduced and ratified by 38 of the 48 state legislatures.
Contrary to the graduates of Beck University, the movement to elect members of the Senate traces its origins to 1826, with the first proposal being introduced to the House in 1870, long before the formation of the "Progressive Movement".
So before we get all hot and bothered about the 17th Amendment, perhaps a review of the history of why the amendment was introduced and ratified by 38 of the 48 state legislatures.
Regardless of the specific details of this mistake, it needs to be undone and soonest. The federal govt has grown way to big for it's britches, and making them at least a product of the states, would help.
Regardless of the specific details of this mistake, it needs to be undone and soonest.
God knows a little history should never stand in your way from fixing something that isn't broken so that it can be broken all over again. Oh, ignorance is so blissful!
Quote:
The federal govt has grown way to big for it's britches, and making them at least a product of the states, would help.
We tried that with the Articles of Confederation, the Civil War, Brown v Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thanks but no thanks.
At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton fought hard against the notion that the Senate should represent the states, and that legislatures should appoint senators. But both men, proponents of a strong national government, ultimately swallowed the compromise to save the Constitution.
"They all saw that as a crushing defeat," said Carol Berkin, a professor of American history and expert on the Constitution at Baruch College. Giving states veto power over national policy in the Senate is "really not what the men who wrote the Constitution intended," she said.
At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton fought hard against the notion that the Senate should represent the states, and that legislatures should appoint senators. But both men, proponents of a strong national government, ultimately swallowed the compromise to save the Constitution.
"They all saw that as a crushing defeat," said Carol Berkin, a professor of American history and expert on the Constitution at Baruch College. Giving states veto power over national policy in the Senate is "really not what the men who wrote the Constitution intended," she said.
Ah, but if you don't know the nature of the compact, you'd believe that "the People of the United States" was synonymous with the people of the United States of America.
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. ...."
- - -Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia
Why shouldn't the States appoint representatives to the government that they are the interested parties of?
"The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government and not for the government of the individual States."
- - -John Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 7 Peters 204, (1822).
Did you know that the "United States" = U.S. Congress, while the "United States of America" referred to the States united?
Read the first two Articles of Confederation.
Bet you didn't know that the United States government is a FOREIGN corporation with respect to a state.
Frankly, "policy" is internal law. The "real law" is that which secure private property rights - which was abolished in 1935, thanks to "voluntary" national socialism.
But you wouldn't know that... who reads law, anyway?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
