SHOULD THE 17TH AMENDMENT BE REPEALED?
By J. P. Biddle
This proposal has been brought forth by the Tea Party. While NOT a member of said, I support the idea.
First a little back ground. Originally the House was elected by direct vote of the people (of we -da people fame), whereas members of the US Senate were appointed by individual state legislatures. Each state had their own rules on just how this was accomplished.
In 1913 the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution was passed that provided for direct election by we -da people. On the surface this seems OK. Then I started to look at this more closely. The first problem is that this was passed in 1913. This was the same year of the Federal Reserve Act. That does NOT bold well. That was the start of a power shift between we-da people and Congress.
Let’s look at the concept. Since the House members are voted by direct vote, they (in theory) represent we-da people. OK, that makes sense. If Senator’s are appointed by the state, it would stand to reason that they would represent the state’s best interest.
Again, let’s look at the concept; the House congressional districts are not based on state borders. They’re based on population. So in theory, they represent we-da people.
The Senate districts are based equally by state. Each state has two Senators. Thus all states are represented equally in the upper house. So for that reason it makes sense for each state to choose their senators via the legislative system.
That was changed in 1913 by the 17th amendment that made the Senate a direct vote. This doesn’t really work as intended. Thus the Senate has been corrupted by special interest. It cost a lot to run for office. The fact that each candidate has to raise ungodly amounts of money, thus it makes them beholden to the highest bidder, so to speak. This just isn’t right.
Clearly the 17th amendment has backfired and does not work as advertised (it may be how it was intended all along.) It seems that the purpose of the 17th amendment was to be able to allow control of the Senate by the wealthy and powerful rather than by the state. This was a corrupt amendment from the get-go, just like the Federal Reserve Act of the same year.
Now that I understand the issue, I agree with the Tea Party on this issue. I do believe that the 17th Amendment was a bad idea and should be repealed. After that, I think we should repeal the Federal Reserve Act (yeah, like there’s a chance in hell of that every being allowed to happen.)
However, I doubt that either will happen because it would be in direct conflict of the NOW/Club of Rome edicts. These two acts have given them almost total control of our legislative and financial systems. In other words, they have us (we-da people) by the short curlies. They will NOT give that up. That you can take to the bank (uh, ah . . . the Federal Reserve Bank, that is.)
For more local news, aim your browser to: