Forget the Russians for a minute - Repeal Amendment XVII

Posted On: Wednesday - June 21st 2017 8:15PM MST
In Topics: 
  The Russians  Liberty/Libertarianism  US Feral Government

That is a 17 for those of us on the new system of numbers - man that Roman system was pretty stupid, you gotta admit. Anyway, from this document (originally not in html format, believe it or not, but on parchment paper), we present to the reader:

Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote. Ratified 4/8/1913.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
Here is the language in Article 1 (Legislative Branch), Section 3 (The Senate):
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
The "chosen by ..." clause was superseded by Amendment 17.

That was a big fuck-up, or possibly part of a plan a century back to help ruin the greatest (meaning smallest and least centralized) central government seen in history. As Peak Stupidity stated (previous link): "Though the latter SEEMS like just an administrative "housekeeping" change, it is most definitely not, and it was as if the people had said "America's Federal government is not broke, but let's fix it!"" See, the results of that change can be seen very easily in most national-seat legislative elections were one to "follow the money", the campaign contributions, that is. This latest Georgia special election was a Congressional one, not Senatorial, but read how much money was involved in the campaign, most of it from out of state.

Zerohedge (not an exclusive - one can read about this anywhere) makes fun of the whole "Russians did it!" angle with: The Russians Do It Again: Democrats Get Crushed In Georgia Election Despite 7x Spending Advantage, but the article is really about who spent money to support the candidates:
Meanwhile, as The Mercury News pointed out earlier this morning, this race has been by far the costliest in the history of Congressional races with Ossoff raising over $23 million. Ironically, he received nearly 9x more donations from California than from Georgia, a testament to how this special election has morphed into a national contest for Democrats.

[SJ Mercury News:] Between March 29 and May 31, Ossoff reported receiving 7,218 donations from California, dwarfing the 808 donations he received from Georgia. In the nine Bay Area counties alone, he received 3,063 donations in the same time period.
Though this congresscreature is supposed to represent the 6th district of Georgia, 1/2 of Atlanta and 'burbs, who will she really be working for? And yes, this was just a congressional race - there are 4.35 of these creatures for each Senator (in lobbyist terminology, that means each Senator's price is 4.35 x higher than a congresscreature - good old supply and demand). In the Senate races, the money spent is much higher. Wait, what does this have to do with the change to the US Constitution 104 years back? I'll tell you what - though each congresscreature nowadays represents 3/4 of a million people on average (without a lot of variance district-to-district), though it was originally specified that "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand" (also overwritten, by Amendment 14), at least the Senators used to be very responsive to their states.

Why, because, the legislatures chose them. The old way gave the states more power, as the state legislators, who are even now still within easy reach of citizens, had more power before the change of Amendment 17. These senators could be recalled much more easily by people in legislatures that had political and legal knowledge vs. referendums/petitions/etc. that most people don't even know about. In addition, the state legislators also would know more about what the state needed from Washington, FS, versus a popular election, what with money from all over the place pushing this national issue or that one. That's what it's come to over the last 30 years or so - the Hildabeast for example, as each Senator can be supported by big money from anywhere in the country, with the state being represented meaning almost nothing anymore.

Each congresscreature represents about 20X as many Americans as originally specified in the US Constitution. That makes the stakes bigger and the money for influence larger. Then, Amendment 17 paved the way for larger more influential money from outside the state to be represented. No, the Russian are the least of our worries in this election business. It's the big money that flows like a river of menstrual blood throughout the country periodically.

One more thing to keep in mind though. Assuming fair elections (not worried about Russian, more like Black Panther intimidation, illegal alien voters, dead voter, dead illegal alien voters, etc.), whatever money put into campaigning can't directly BUY enough votes. It only effects those who can't do the thinking required of a responsible voter. That's the real basic problem; Peak Stupidity rears it's ugly head here too.

No comments

WHAT SAY YOU? : (PLEASE NOTE: You must type capital PS as the 1st TWO characters in your comment body - for spam avoidance - or the comment will be lost!)