A Puff Of Air For Article Five
Hannity will give a full hour to Article Five this Friday night based in part on a new book coming out tomorrow by Mark Levin, “The Liberty Amendments”
Levin believes the 17th is the real culprit to the demise of the Republic. Could be he and WW are right. Could be the money influence, Corpocracy, has given us the best gov’t money can buy.
Whatever the reason(s), the Corpocracy has their tentacles wrapped around Article Five, part 2, and they will never ever never allow it to be implemented.
AVC requires ratification by 3/4’s of the state legislatures, takes years and years. We can’t wait years and years, IMO.
That is why we need a new 3rd party w/a/dif/pol/att, founded in rules to prevent cooption and designed to abolish corporate personhood, implement real CFR and get back to gov’t of the people, for the people and by the people.
Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.
Posted by Roy Ellis at August 12, 2013 9:22 PM
Finally, someone has identified the problem. Mark Levin has opened the door and shined a light on the root cause of our present day woes.
Figures A and B in the article Repeal Seventeenth Amendment By John MacMullin illustrates the sharp contrast in the pre and post 17th amendment situation.
This amendment created a fundamental structural problem which, irrespective of the political party in office, or the laws in effect at any one time, will result in excessive federal control in every area. It also results in a failure in the federalist structure, federal deficit spending, inappropriate federal mandates, and the evaporation of state influence over national policy.
The emphasis is mine, because I believe this is the most important and most devastating result of the 17th amendment. The states no longer have an influence when dealing with the federal government. The states are subordinate to the federal government and that was never part of the deal. The federal government was to be an equal partner with the states, not the master of the states.
Progressives use the lame excuse of corruption to beat down the proponents of an amendment to repeal the 17th. Progressives ignore the corruption that permeates the federal government and the lack of the federal government’s constitutional authority in their attempt to hold onto power. Mark Levin has done this country a great service when he illustrates the flaws in the 17th amendment and when he makes his proposal to repeal it. He has also done a great service when emphasizing the framer’s inclusion of Article 5 into the constitution.
Mark Levin has identified the problem and he has proposed a solution. It’s up to the American people, as it always has been, to implement the solution and rectify the error called the 17th amendment.
Thanks for the post Roy. I have been a Levin fan for many years and listen to his radio show as often as I can in addition to owning all his books.
Weary is right…”It’s up to the American people, as it always has been, to implement the solution and rectify the error called the 17th amendment.”
How do we get American’s off their fat asses to accomplish what is needed? I believe it will get much worse before, and if, it ever gets better.
WW writes: “It’s up to the American people … to implement the solution and rectify the error called the 17th amendment.”
Royal writes: “How do we get American’s off their fat asses to accomplish what is needed?”
Well, great green gobs of grimy greazy gopher guts!! How can you expect any movement to states rights under Corpocracy? Is it not crystal clear that Corpocracy equates to globalism and globalism equates to ‘one world’? Corpocracy is moving us away from tribalism, communityism, localism, states rights, national sovereignty and so on - - -
Meaning? Intel travel with no docs, insurance and similar valid in any country, intl law that trumps antiquated nationstate law, Better said - ‘one world’.
I agree with Levin when he says the two parties are comfortable/secure with the ‘status quo’, thus no changes forthcoming. We are not going to get AVC, CFR, 17th repealed, etc.
Unless, we can drive corpocracy from the stage through a new 3rd party w/a/dif/pol/att designed to remove the money influence from pol/govt, IMO.
Otherwise - - -
I have an Idea!
Never mind. It’s not easy enough.
Giving the people the right to vote for the Senator they want to represent them instead of sending a political appointee to DC is the answer to what problem exactly guys?
This wild eye crazy attempt at more voter suppression is a joke and conservatives fall for it. The movement leadership likes it as does the monied class but for us everyday folks it it a major step backwards. Use some critical thinking skills here guys, look back and see why political appointees didn’t work the first 100 years of the country.
j2t2, what’s working so well that you can’t even entertain any type of change? Are you so comfortable that nothing should change? Why are you so content?
I think everyone should do some critical thinking and ask yourselves why the 16th and the 17th amendments, and the federal reserve bank were all created in the same year. In an age where communication was no where near what we have today can we honestly say the people knew what the progressive movement was doing to their government? I have my doubts.
Weary changing just to change just doesn’t make sense in this case. The governor appointing the senators for the state didn’t work, why would we think it would this time around?
You might like to think the people didn’t know what was being done but this change was 60 years in the making. Really what do you think will change should this revision to the constitution be repealed? DO you think Governors or state legislators can better decide who the people of the state want to represent them than the people themselves? That somehow state legislators are not politicians bought just as the federal representatives are? If you want change for the sake of change why not get the money out of politics at both the sate and federal level? Or make all elected officials were uniforms that tell us who sponsors them. But to think Levin has an answer to any problem is just foolish when his answer is go back 100 years to a system that didn’t work then. What next, blacks counted as 1/5th a person and only landed gentry can vote?
The legislature elected senators, j2t2. They weren’t appointed by governors. Your lack of knowledge of pre progressive history is showing. And it worked longer than this failure has been installed. I can’t understand how you can say our current condition is a success!
Anything that gets the individual closer to their elected officials is better than what we have now. I would much rather look my state rep. in the eye and tell him to vote for the senator that represents my state than just throw one vote toward a media-picked talking head any day. I would be able to trust my state rep. a lot more than I could someone I only see on the boob tube.
Weary, why on earth would you think the individual would “get closer” if the state legislature was electing Senators? As it is Senators are responsible to the people of the state,prior to the 17th amendment the Senators were responsible to the stat legislature. You had no say directly to the Senator. You didn’t matter.
The real issue here is it happened during the progressive era so it must be bad. Yet you can’t say why.
The people would be closer to their government because we would no longer be looking at the federal government as the cure all of every single problem, real or imagined. We would be looking to our state, to our neighbor, and to ourselves for solutions.
Do you remember that commercial about H. Clinton when she ran for Pres? It showed the politician on the big screen and the audience staring at the screen, hypnotized by the image. They were all transfixed and totally controlled by the image on the screen. That’s the way I look at the electorate of today. Struck dumb by what they are allowed to see on their television screen. Totally ignorant of the real person the media chose to represent them. Totally unable to control anything.
The people were never supposed to control both branches of congress. The people controlled the House and it’s purse strings. The states controlled the Senate and kept power away from the fed. It was only when the majority of the states/senators agreed did the federal government have any power. All of that is gone now because of the 17th amendment. The idea that an individual can control what their senators do is ludicrous. The idea that people believe the vote for their senator matters is also ludicrous. It’s ludicrous because the constitution never intended it to be that way.
Before the 17th amendment was ratified the individual didn’t give a damn about the federal government. The federal government had nothing to do with the individual. The federal government dealt with states and with foreign countries. The federal government taxed the states for it’s revenue. The individual didn’t give a rat’s ass about the federal government because it had no influence over the individual. It was the state, the local government, and neighbors that had the influence.
The 17th amendment upset the checks and balances that made this country great. This country wasn’t founded on a federal government dictating to the states and the individual what they should do and how they should live their lives. It was founded and it prospered with the freedom of the individual and the freedom of the states to be the laboratories of innovation. They were free to try different things and to achieve different results. They were free to fail as well as succeed.
People have been led to believe this country’s history started when the progressive movement started. Things that happened before the progressive movement are portrayed as bad. The civil war, no unions, robber barons, evil capitalists abandoning injured worker children. Then the progressive movement came and angels started singing and everybody was happy and the nation, only then, started to prosper. I’ll be the first to say the 20th century was very prosperous but I’ll be damned if I’ll say it was because of the progressive movement. The progressive movement has gone too far in it’s lust for power!
The states can do the same thing the federal government is doing now. The states can educate their own children. The states can protect their own land, air, citizens. States and individuals can provide for their own welfare and retirement. They don’t have to be helpless zombies staring at the image of their exalted senator, waiting for them to throw a morsel of their own property back to them.
People would be more involved with their government if it was local government that benefited from their labor. If a person was taxed the same amount he is today, and it went to his state and local government instead of the federal government, he would be much more attentive to how that money was spent. He would not let his neighbor sit in front of a tv set all day if he knew it was his money that neighbor was wasting. We have to get back to looking our neighbor in the eye again. We can’t survive staring at a screen, hoping that image will understand what’s best for the individual or his neighbor. We’ve lost sight of the individual and the power the individual possesses. A power that starts with self-interest, self-confidence and self-determination.
Repealing the 17th amendment will not leave a void because the previous procedure would fill it. Repealing the 16th amendment would not leave a void because the previous procedure would fill it. The void created by a neutered federal government would be filled by the states and by the individual. The loss many would experience would be a loss of power. The dependent would gain a teach a man to fish moment, self respect, and freedom. One thing is guaranteed, though. Nothing will change if we just sit on our asses and procrastinate because of the bullshit notion that if we repealed the 17th amendment this country would only revert back to the 1800’s.
DO you think Governors or state legislators can better decide who the people of the state want to represent them than the people themselves?
Yes! Absolutely! Who better to choose a representative of the state than a state’s legislature? It is the state’s legislature that is directly responsible for the state’s well being. That is why we elect state legislators.
The people don’t run the state’s day to day operations. The legislature does. The people don’t have time to understand the day to day operation of legislating the state’s affairs. Legislators do. It’s their job. It is in the best interest of the state to have knowledgeable people select the best people to protect and promote the state’s interests when dealing with the federal government.
Furthermore, what the state giveth, the state can taketh away. Meaning, if a senator goes against the best interest of the state he represents his job is forfeit and he is replaced. I believe this is a plank in Roy Ellis’ new 3rd party w/a/dif/pol/att platform.
Another factor would be campaign spending. Millions of dollars of outside money poured into 2012 U.S. Senate elections. According to data from the Campaign Finance Institute, $315 million was spent on U.S. Senate campaigns in 2012. The U.S. Senate race in Virginia has $51 million in spending by itself. Under the pre-1913 voting rules, the candidates for that seat wouldn’t even be in play until after the November general election was over, so there would be no opportunity for special interests to invest in campaigns.
Another plank of the new 3rd party w/a/dif/pol/att platform realized.
Progressives can only spew one reason why a repeal of the 17th amendment is unwarranted: deadlock.
Only 2 percent of the races ended in a deadlock–but these deadlocks were devastating, because they prevented patronage jobs from being appointed.
But already I have demonstrated twice as many reasons why a repeal of the 17th amendment would be beneficial. The real reason why progressives don’t want their brainchild repealed?.. The illusion of democracy and the power that comes with it.
Look at Egypt.
The military and the secularist are on one side, using violence to suppress what they likely see as a radical islamist threat. Meanwhile, the Islamists see the military as stooges of the west, and while they were in power, they weren’t exactly shy about trying to take permanent control for themselves, either.
The sides are at each others’ throats, in no small part because they’re unwilling to share power. They want to meet all their own goals, no compromise to the other side.
And they think all this is worth killing people over. You can say, “Oh, we had peace under Mubarak.” But now the protestors can say, “Oh, we had peace under Morsi!”
And both sides can claim that if only everybody let them do what they want, everything would be fine.
Only, it doesn’t work that way. If power is absolute, if power is great enough that a government can essentially pull up the ladder to power behind it and float away from accountability, then the true believers among the rivals will act outside the law in order to get their way.
Truth is, both Morsi and Mubarak tried to suppress their rivals, and that only encouraged them to finally take over, and try the same pulling up of the ladder.
I think a lot of the Constitution is built around preventing that. The Bill of Rights makes it very difficult for the government to use its official power to set it’s claim on power in stone. It keeps the government from destroying dissent, disbanding potential rivals with the force of law, jailing its rivals on trumped up charges and conducting arbitrary searches, seizures and arrests on them.
Additionally, and I think this is worth emphasizing, but the Constitution is built to inhibit the power of any group that tries to hijack the government through one of its branches. It sets high bars on certain kinds of votes (including veto overturns and treaty ratifications.)
The standards are high on revising. Two thirds for proposal, which ever method you choose, then back to the state legislatures for a vote that has to win by 3/4s.
Why make it so hard? Because people can be real d***s about government. Most everybody else can be really happy about how things are, or else just not big on changing things, especially in their direction. The structure was meant to inhibit that sort of d***ery, so that if there was a big change, it was something a good proportion of everybody wanted.
Why is this important?
Look at Egypt. However much YOU might feel certain reforms are necessary, There may be a whole bunch of people who think its a joke, or worse. The government and its laws are not supposed to change on the idle whim of the few, but on the constrained, consensus-based decision of the majority, and in the case of the Constitution, a supermajority.
Because of all this, our nation’s had one Civil War, and an amazing record of continuity, even when compared to Europe. Even now, you don’t see our bitter, intense rivals shedding each others’ blood. That is the Framer’s gift to us. What they gave us is neither libertarianism or totalitarianism, but a form of government that yields order and freedom, interwoven like the fingers of two hands. It’s a beautiful thing, and one of the thing that makes things work.
When I look at the Article V thing, I see an attempt at a power grab of the kind that we’ve avoided for the longest time, all in the name of expedience. No, I think we need to try and solve our problems by statutory measures first, not try and pre-empt the other side’s ability to set policy to get just what we want.
No, I think we need to try and solve our problems by statutory measures first,
This is a “nibbling around the edges” phylosophy. It doesn’t address the fundamental problem. You’re never going to solve our problems by tweaking with needless laws that only cause more problems.
This “Article V thing” is not a power grab, Stephen Daugherty. The 17th and 16th amendments were a power grab. The Federal Reserve Act was a power grab. It was the theft of the checks and balances built into the constitution. It was the theft of our currency and that theft continues to this day via. inflation.
Egypt has nothing to do with our problems. I don’t know why you brought it up. It sounds like obfuscation to me. You’re unwilling to look a the logic in the Article V argument.
“”The Article V Convention option, has yet to be successfully invoked, although not for lack of
activity in the states. Three times in the 20th century, concerted efforts were undertaken by
proponents of particular amendments to secure the number of applications necessary to summon
an Article V Convention. These included conventions to consider amendments to (1) provide for
popular election of U.S. Senators; (2) permit the states to include factors other than equality of
population in drawing state legislative district boundaries; and (3) to propose an amendment
requiring the U.S. budget to be balanced under most circumstances.9
The campaign for a
popularly elected Senate is frequently credited with “prodding” the Senate to join the House of
Representatives in proposing what became the 16th Amendment to the states in 1912, while the
latter two campaigns came very close to meeting the two-thirds for an Article V Convention in
the 1960s and 1980s, respectively.””
But already I have demonstrated twice as many reasons why a repeal of the 17th amendment would be beneficial.
No you haven’t Weary. But lets say you did, so what are you saying the side with the most reasons wins? If so please let me know in advance so we can all play.
The people would be closer to their government…
Once again this is just silly Weary and really shouldn’t count towards your total. While this may be your opinion and the opinion of Levin,Beck and others it is just that an opinion. No basis in fact. IMHO the opposite would be true the people would have no influence at all over the Senator that represents them in Congress.
The people were never supposed to control both branches of congress.
Using this logic Weary blacks were to count as 1/5th a person and only land male could vote. Is this what you believe made the county great?
People have been led to believe this country’s history started when the progressive movement started. Things that happened before the progressive movement are portrayed as bad. The civil war, no unions, robber barons, evil capitalists abandoning injured worker children.
No people have been led to believe we had no problems until the progressives of the early 1900’s enacted laws and amendments that opened the gilded age to more people. But please Weary I am just dying to hear why the civil war was so good. I also find it sad that you are telling us the child labor laws, women’s suffrage and such are bad things. Perhaps it is you that needs to quit listening to Levin and Beck and find out the truth not their revisionist version of history.
Progressives can only spew one reason why a repeal of the 17th amendment is unwarranted: deadlock.
You must not read what I have said, Weary. Why would you think the state legislature would be better able to pick the state Senator that the people of the state themselves? Repealing the 17th is a bad idea because the old way didn’t work. It is that simple.
It was the theft of the checks and balances built into the constitution.
Neither the 16th nor 17th amendment were a power grab or diminished the checks and balances of our system of government,Weary. The Senate was always part of and still is part of Congress, one of the 3 branches of government that gives us a system of checks and balances.
IMHO Weary you are being mislead by your movement leaders. The 17th amendment is not the problem. How do you expect these guys to solve the problem if they don’t know what the problem is?
Unlike you and your zombie Democratics, I think for myself. I’m not blinded by partisan politics. I’m a problem solver and the first step in solving problems is to identify the problem. I’m sorry your party’s power mongering is getting in the way of your seeing the problem and working towards a solution.
Just because the people made a mistake 100 years ago doesn’t mean we’re stuck with that mistake. It takes a man to admit a mistake. Our country must man up and realize our fathers made a mistake. Our country has corrected it’s mistakes before, it can do it again.
By the way, j2t2. You are no one to talk about revising history when you do it yourself.
But please Weary I am just dying to hear why the civil war was so good. I also find it sad that you are telling us the child labor laws, women’s suffrage and such are bad things.
I was pointing out that progressive revisionists can not bring themselves to identify anything good happening before their Coup d’état of our government in 1913. They hide the fact that the Democratic party was the most racist party in our country’s history. They hide the fact that their policies were responsible for the civil war. They hide the fact that the Republican party pulled this country together after the civil war and led it thru a long half century of prosperity. You’re precious Democratics are liars and hypocrites. They are power mongers of the Hamilton/King George sort and are too cowardly to admit it. They hide behind the constitution while doing everything they can to undermine it. The 16th and the 17th amendments are proof of their success. The condition of our government and our country is proof of their success. The lack of influence our constitution has on our lawmakers is proof of their success. The failing of the Republican party is they have joined in with the overthrow of our country and I’ve decided I’m not going to knuckle under the way you apparently have.
Unlike you and your zombie Democratics, I think for myself. I’m not blinded by partisan politics. I’m a problem solver and the first step in solving problems is to identify the problem.
And judging from the call to repeal the 16th and 17th amendment it seems you are still trying to get to step one. But I do have to give credit to the movement leaders, they sure have you guys believing you are thinking for yourselves despite all evidence to the contrary.
Weary, blaming progressives, as you call your political opponents, for all these perceived problems and then deciding repealing the work they have done over 100 years is the answer to all our woes is being fed to you and you are swallowing up without putting it into perspective. Look at Beck and Levin, their myths misinformation half truths and outright lies closer. Give them the same critical eye you give to any progressive. The shine will be off the apple with just a bit of scrutiny Weary, then think for yourself.
By the way, j2t2. You are no one to talk….
Oh Weary what a good movement follower you are. Repeating these trifles just as the movement leaders tell you to. These tangents you insist upon going off on are old hat having been debunked in many previous comment so let me just quote this instead of following you down.
“A Gilded Age (1877–1901) was marked by Republican dominance of Congress. During this time, lobbying activity became more intense, particularly during the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant in which influential lobbies advocated for railroad subsidies and tariffs on wool.”
It does seem you gave up on the checks and balances argument, is that correct Weary? Once you understood the 3 branches of government is what gives us the system of checks and balances we had before and have after the 17th amendment was adopted. So that leaves the illusions your movement leaders have created (so you can think them for yourself). You know, that somehow if your state legislators pick the Senator they will be closer to the people! And of course that silly notion the people shouldn’t control both houses of Congress. Seems you may not have as many reasons as you were told.
Fortuntely, Professor Zywicki offers an explanation for the Amendment’s enactment that makes much more sense. He contends that the true backers of the Seventeenth Amendment were special interests, which had had great difficultly influencing the system when state legislatures controlled the Senate. (Recall that it had been set up by the Framers precisely to thwart them.) They hoped direct elections would increase their control, since they would let them appeal directly to the electorate, as well as provide their essential political fuel - money.
j2t2, if anything, I am a movement leader. I have been promoting the repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments since I have been on WatchBlog and before. I have been promoting the repeal of the Federal Reserve Act for as long. I have been promoting these changes long before the people you refer to gained notoriety.
I submit it is you that are the mindless follower of your leaders since you do not put forth any original thought. You only criticize those you disagree with and your arguments parrot the talking points formulated by your masters.
Does anyone believe that the millions of dollars of campaign funds flowing into Senate elections in one state, from those in other states, represent the interest of those in the state electing the senator?
We don’t elect our president by direct popular vote, instead we have an electoral college.
Those representative the citizens in each state send to their statehouse to represent them are extremely sensitive to what the folks back home, their neighbors and friends, want done politically. Political interests outside the state electing a senator have too much influence in the electoral process.
You only criticize those you disagree with
Really Weary. I guess that just makes me different from every other commentator here on WB because lord knows they always criticize those they agree with, right?
and your arguments parrot the talking points formulated by your masters.
Hey where did I hear that before, oh yeah, hey aren’t you parroting this Weary?
Look Weary the idea to repeal the 17th amendment is a bad idea. The reason you mention are opinions not facts. They come from being misinformed whether intentionally or not. The system was corrupt before the 17th Amendment was adopted.
Is that all you got, j2t2? Waaahhh! The system was corrupt! Wahhhh!
Says who, j2t2? That sounds like your opinion more than a fact. Corrupt is so, in the eye of the beholder. How come it worked for 125 years if it was so corrupt? That’s longer than your failed idea lasted. This country was growing and prospering and had the respect of the world in those 125 years! How’s it working out now, j2t2? How’s the respect now? Hows the country growing now? How’s that prosperity thing going for you now, j2t2?
I submit any gains made by this country were made in spite of your progressive ideology, not because of it.
Weary, Once again you use myths in a silly attempt to make a point. You hate progressives but that doesn’t make what they did wrong and the source of all our problems of today. So in a nutshell a brief look back at the different periods in our history is needed.
In fact when the conservative philosophy reigned in this country, the gilded age, things just weren’t that good. Of course as the progressive movement started waning in the 1920’s and the conservatives reemerged we were left with the great depression which I submit had more of a negative effect on the country than anything the progressives did.
Then in the 80’s when yet another era of conservative thought and socialized risk privatized profits began (or supply side economics, free market economics ) again we seen the same thing, Brief periods of prosperity followed by recession, public debt, corruption and wars. Income inequality at levels not seen since the great depression. Yet people like you continue to tell us it was the progressives of a hundred year ago that are causing the problems of today.
If only we could reduce government interference in the market, If only we could let the kids work the factories. If only we could get rid of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Sherman Anti Trust Act and such things would be fine.
BTW how come you don’t want the other progressive amendment, the 19th amendment, repealed? Then we could rid the nation of the scourge of democracy and return to ruling by and for the elites.
Weary, Although it is way off subject lets remember it was the conservative idol Reagan and GHWB that militarized the police with the get tough on crime bills of the mid eighties.
Arlington Texas where Perry and his ilk rule. Conservatives in Texas are as authoritarian as they are any where else Weary. Yet you act surprised.
Did you condemn that behavior? NO!
Did you admit it is not your America? NO!
Did you commit to stopping it? NO!
No, you just blamed republicans for it. You passively accept that type of behavior and blame republicans and conservatives as a means of allowing it to happen.
Remember, j2t2. Silence is a form of consent.
This is true,Coach Purses On Sale, thick clouds sun poked from the face,Michael Kors Outlet, the smile,Polo Outlet Online, poured in the garden, as thin thick cup dry red wine,North Clearance Outlet Online, with the hour hand moves quietly reveals,http://www.guccishoesofactory.com/, its mellow taste to,Coach Purses Outlet Online, a wide variety of flowers,http://www.laurenpoloralph.com/, and leaves by this warm sun a photo, camellias,Gucci Shoes UK, osmanthus,MCM Backpack Outlet, a bunch of red flowers as well as unknown, seems to have freed themselves from the fetters of winter,North Faces Outlet, it has not been tuojin colorful autumn,Coach Factory Online, in mildly like a breath of spring, the stream overflows qinren fragrance,http://www.north-faceoutletonlines.net/, a bunch of red and yellow mixed in green grass more dazzling,Michael Kors Outlet USA, colorful,Louis Vuitton Shop, showing wind gesture, inlaid in white osmanthus green black branches, scattered locations of goose yellow pistil,Monster Headphones Outlet, willowy open,Coach Factory Online, quietly circulated a kind qinren fragrance,Louis Vuitton Shoes Factory, camellia, chrysanthemum graceful soft,Coach Outlet USA, contests,Michael Kors Outlet Online, and open a more subtle, deep,http://www.mmonsterheadphones.net/, like a spring and summer after experiencing mature girl.