17TH AMENDMENT WAS A HUGE MISTAKE

Since it was ratified in 1913, we have been losing states’ rights over time and it is getting faster. Today we see the abuses of the federal government destroying the powers of the state at an alarming rate.

The 17th Amendment must go if we are ever to rein in the abuses of the federal government. The good news is that we do not need a Constitutional amendment to do that. Here’s why…

Article V of the US Constitution spells out the process for amending the Constitution. The last line of Article V seems prophetic in that it spells out that the 17th Amendment could not happen unless 100% of the states agreed. That line reads, “and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

What this clearly means is that no State (as an entity – that is why it is capitalized) can have its representation in Congress taken from it without consent. Taking that representation away from the state as an entity and placing it with the people of that state clearly takes away any representation in the US Senate for the states. Therefore, it was not passed by all states so some (a total of 12) did not consent.

Some might argue that the 36 that did ratify it would be bound by it. This would violate equal representation, therefore could not stand.

As with all governments, it becomes necessary, from time to time, to reacquaint ourselves with its basic mechanics of operation. The Founding Fathers gave posterity a written constitution to aid in this process. When there are doubts as to its meaning, one must study its original intent to discern proper application, for “the intent of the Lawgiver is the Law.”

Current events in this nation have provoked citizens and scholars to perform this assessment — to “retrace our steps” — in yet another area: the principle of federalism. Simply defined, federalism is ‘a system that combines States retaining sovereignty within a certain sphere with a central body possessing sovereignty within another sphere, and a third sphere where concurrent jurisdiction (exists].’

After years of silence on the matter, a resurgence of interest in federalism became evident. President Reagan’s “New Federalism,” “The Federalist Society,” and a report on federalism issued by the Domestic Policy Council were just some of the manifestations of this increasing concern.

The reason for the current interest is that America is reaping the fruit of centralized government. Contrary to the Founding Fathers’ original vision of separate spheres of jurisdiction between the people, the states, and national government, our current system is now dominated by the national government.

The United States Constitution, as drafted by the Founding Fathers, clearly enumerated the limited powers of the national government. All other powers were reserved to the states or the people. The 10th Amendment affirms this noting: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’

The separate spheres of jurisdiction of the national and state governments have gradually been eroded. The national government has increasingly usurped the reserved power of both the people and the states. It has been documented that:’States, once the hub of political activity and the very source of our political tradition, have been reduced — in significant part — to administrative units of the national government ….’

As a result of this erosion process, both the national government and the state governments are crippled in their effectiveness. The national government, having taken on too much power, is unable to properly administer all the areas it has arrogated unto itself. On the other hand, the state governments are impotent in legislating and executing the will of the people because they are subject to unpredictable subjugation by the national government.

Our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, proclaims as self evident the proposition that “all men are … endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” and that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” When state governments so instituted become impotent, then it is their right and duty to reacquire the appropriate power in order to fulfill the purpose for which they were originally established.