Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Keith Broaders on August 2, 2012 at 11:36am

We Must Repeal the 17th Amendment

http://www.quia.com/pages/constitutionalstudies/page322

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chancy Yardbird on August 2, 2012 at 11:52am

Hiya Kieth, I have often pondered the 17. and considered the results should WE THE PEOPLE ever choose to repeal it.

Under the original provisions of the Constitution, senators were elected by state legislatures; this was intended to ensure that the Federal government contained representatives of the states, and also to provide a body not dependent on popular support that could afford to "take a more detached view of issues coming before Congress. (Wikipedia)

However, over time various perceived issues with these provisions, such as the risk of corruption and the potential for electoral deadlocks or a lack of representation should a seat become vacant, led to a campaign for reform. (Wikipedia)

So Keith, I hope you see that along with any repeal, WE THE PEOPLE must also bring a sollution and a proper reform to replace the intended purpose of the 17th.

Wikipedia

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Broaders on August 2, 2012 at 12:07pm

The idea of the founders was to have a system of checks and balances. The House of Representatives was to represent the people and the Senate was to represent the interests of the states. When the 17th amendment created two houses to represent the people the system of checks and balances was destroyed.

The concept of Federalism demands that the authority of the people is granted to both at both the state and national level. If the states have no voice all of the power is shifted to the national government.

The states were not intedned to rule over the natonal government and the national government was not intended to rule over the states. We the people delegated limited and well defined powers to the national government and any authority not granted to the national government was to be reserved to the states.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chancy Yardbird on August 2, 2012 at 2:15pm

Ok, for grins and giggles let's say the 17th. is simply repealed. Then what will your solution be when your state legislature becomes corrupt and sends people to the d.c. that you the people of your state no longer think highly of. Not only will they be there doing a lousy job for you but everyone in every state.

It's one of those "shoot your own damned rabid dog first" kind of situations.

I personally would like to repeal the 17th but replace it with an ammendment that would make it easier for the the people of each state to recall the state legislators who send scoundrels to d.c. but that's only a partial sollution and what appears no more than a slap on the wrist.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Broaders on August 2, 2012 at 2:21pm

The further the power is removed from the people, the more likely the rights of the people will be abused. It would be easier for us to deal with corruption that is confined to our state than curruption at the national level.

I agree that wehenever you have elected officials that can benefit from their positions there is a potential for fraud and corruption. If you live in a state that is corrupt and unaccountable, pack you bags and move to a state that in more honorable.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Broaders on August 2, 2012 at 12:07pm

The idea of the founders was to have a system of checks and balances. The House of Representatives was to represent the people and the Senate was to represent the interests of the states. When the 17th amendment created two houses to represent the people the system of checks and balances was destroyed.

The concept of Federalism demands that the authority of the people is granted to both at both the state and national level. If the states have no voice all of the power is shifted to the national government.

The states were not intedned to rule over the natonal government and the national government was not intended to rule over the states. We the people delegated limited and well defined powers to the national government and any authority not granted to the national government was to be reserved to the states.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Broaders on August 2, 2012 at 10:13am

Magnus,

Should indiiduals be allowed to practice medicine without training or certification?

One of the proper functions of government is to proect the life, liberty and property of the people. Certifying that one is qualified perform open heart surgery is one way that the government can protect the lives of the people.

I think that requiring a candidate to demonstrate an understanding of the Constituton is not the same theing as requiring a license. As an employer, we the people have a right to require appolicants for a job to demonstrate that they are qualified for the position that they are seeking.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bonnie Frownfelter on August 2, 2012 at 10:26am

Having the proper instruction or training is very different from licensing. It is up to the People to check out the credentials of their perspective physicians as opposed to allowing an over-bloated bureaucracy do it for them. Licensing or certification does not assure that the idividual is going to do a good job, it is about money and power.

Reputation and satified patients, customers is the determinant to quality. That is how it used to be before government found out how much money and power could be gained from regulating every single detail of ones life.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Broaders on August 2, 2012 at 11:39am

We must repeal the17th Amendment

http://www.quia.com/pages/constitutionalstudies/page322

Candidates for Congress that do not make a committment to repeal the 17th Amendment should not be elected in the upcoming election.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Broaders on August 2, 2012 at 12:15pm

I think that as when I seek professional help from a Doctor, Dentist, Lawyer of Accountant I should be able to know if they are qualified. I don't think that it is the job of the government to liecnse people, but I agree that some form of certification would be desireable.

In our society diplomas are a form of certification, they are not a license. A person with a diploma has a distinct advantage over someone that does not. As a prospective employer, I have a right to determine whether or not an applicant is qualified. I don't think that it is asking too much for a candidate to demonstrate that they know and understand the Constitution.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Broaders on August 2, 2012 at 10:50am

It has been stated that requring a person to have a licenses are unconstitutional. It is true that the Central government is only allowed to do those things that are delegated to it in the Constitution. Congress is given no authority to require licenses or permits. But, the state governments are not prohibited from passing legislation that requires doctors, lawyers and acountants from being certified. The state and national government are supposed to protect the life, liberty and property of the people. If a state allowed just anyone to practice medicine the state is not protecting the life, liberty and property of the people.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bonnie Frownfelter on August 2, 2012 at 11:37am

"The state and national government are supposed to protect the life, liberty and property of the people. If a state allowed just anyone to practice medicine the state is not protecting the life, liberty and property of the people."

I do not agree with this logic. If we do not stop looking to the government to do our thinking and research for us, we can never be free. Self-governance comes with responsibility. Allowing the US CORPORATE GOVERNMENT, be it at the Federal or State level to have power over such fields as services provided to the people will with absolute certainty create corruption has it has, it is called lobbying and market manipulations.

A true de jure republic that provides freedom and liberty to the people is self-governed by the people, it is not legislated by politician attorneys, but by the people from their local communities first.

When the power of licensing is given to the state it gives power to a group to decide what is "safe for the people and who will provide it."

Now research fluoride, vaccinations, GMO's just to name a few and tell me the People are being protected by licensing and certifications.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page