A Convention of the States Project/Movement has been ongoing now since 2011, the movement and its advocates would like to wrest State Powers gradually arrogated to – and by – the Federal Government post the ratification of the Bull Moose Platform in 1913, we suggest the better option (A convention of States may result in unexpected detrimental consequences…) is to repeal the 17th Amendment.
Such an action could likely be consummated if President Trump was brought onboard and made re-Federating the Government of the U.S. a priority. Of course, such a campaign would require informing the public, more about that in a subsequent note… Here we deal with the 17th Amendment’s repeal…
The 17th Amendment allows us, citizens, to directly elect our Senators; previous to 1913 they were appointed by State Representatives and served at their behest.
Trending: When New Technology becomes a Threat
The Constitution of the United States allows restriction of appellate jurisdiction of the Federal courts by a simple majority of House (Note: a majority of House members, would generally not be difficult to obtain) and Senate members; until 1913, such a practice was more than possible, it was probable; if a majority of States favored a Law to be the purview of the States and the House concurred, the Federal courts had no jurisdiction.
Today social activism ensures that nearly all laws are reviewed by the Federal Courts, which results in the Nation being homogenized; issues e.g., abortion, sans the 17th Amendment, would have remained a State affair. A majority of the States’ laws, regarding marriage, define it as a relation between a man and woman; the Supreme Court may very well change that. A Senate responsible to State Representatives would most likely – with the help of the House of Representatives – restrain the Federal Courts, making marriage a State concern.
A Senate elected by We the People has not only encouraged mandated social homogenization it has dramatically led to the growth in government – because the direct election of Senators has freed them from the leash of penurious State Representatives, and allowed them to become philanthropists via the Public purse…The Senate envisioned by the Founding Fathers as a means of limiting the Federal Government – by making it responsible to the States – has become an agency enabling the aggregation of power in Washington.
Thus the Nation teeters on the edge of economic and social/moral collapse with a population made slothfully lethargic via a synergy of its Institutions i.e., Church, Media and State (particularly via the Education system) as they have advocated near ubiquitous government. The repeal of the 17th Amendment would most dramatically shuffle the deck of enumerated powers in favor of Liberty by reasserting Federalism, but how to accomplish the repeal?
Over a 6 days period (2012 campaign season), I received 9 phone calls from conservative activists groups soliciting money for one nostrum or another. I heard their pitches and with 2 questions was able to deflate their advocacy balloons. Then in speaking to these callers for less than 2 minutes, I was able to enlist their advocacy in the repeal of 17th Amendment, because if understood – it is easy to explain – the potential healthful national benefits, social and financial, are inestimable. I suggest that the repeal may be realized thusly:
Enlisting these same, and other, advocacy groups, along with conservative Radio talk show hosts, the conservative think tanks e.g., the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute et al, conservative columnists and magazines e.g., the National Review, the Weekly Standard, the American Thinker, Reason et al and Tea-Parties to foster an environ advocating the repeal of the 17th Amendment through which the “low-information voter (so dubbed by Limbaugh) too will see their long-term interests, and that of the Nation being served.
Some of the Checks& Issues which may be achieved and realized by the returning the U.S. Senate to State Legislatures:
- Check Federal intrusion into State affairs
- Halt Federal Courts by allowing restriction of Appellate Jurisdiction
- States would ensure Senate would enact a budget in the interest of the majority of the States
- Re-establish a power balance between the States and Washington
- Largely Negates the National Media ability to hector/fillip Senate into compliance with aggregation of power i.e., Centralization
- Atrophy of the unconstitutional purviews
- Education would again be a State, and local community affair
- Voter Sloth, voter ignorance would become considerably more tolerable, because State Legislators will limit the size and scope of the Federal government i.e., the electorate’s desire will be checked by State Representative knowledge of their particular States interest…
- Local Media will become more important to local communities because State Law will more greatly impact the everyday life of citizens. The National Media will become less prominent because Washington will become less prominent.
- Media will become less ideological because issues will be less ideological – they will be State issues, rather than National issues – thus, advocacies will be economic, rather than sociological.
- Impeachment prosecutions would be realized
- Senate would not concern itself with Public sentiment
- Much more difficult to lobby a majority of States than a centralized government
- Parties would become less political
- Supreme & Federal Courts would be less activist
- Campaign for Senate would require only the money necessary to purchase a bus ticket to the State Capital…
There are a number of bullet assertions, which may require explanation, as to why (I allow for the illative power of the reader, but give one example) e.g., “Parties would become less political.” I explain: Now although the House of Representatives would initially be the same, it would adjust – once its members no longer saw the Senate as a monolith, but rather open for legislation on some things, but immovable on others. A Chuck Schumer (or a Harry Reid) would not be able to control the Senators beholden to informed State Representatives. So what would Party loyalty mean? Little – to nothing – to a Senator on a State leash!
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and are not not necessarily either shared or endorsed by iPatriot.com.