Our Argument to Repeal Amendment XVII.

Vic Biorseth, Tuesday, January 25, 2011
http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

What are we? The USA is a Constitutional Republic. At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what sort of nation this new Constitution had brought into being, he replied “A Republic, if you can keep it.” What, exactly, does that mean? What’s the difference between a Republic and a Democracy? Why is the simple answer to that question not right on the tip of the tongue of every American citizen? Why does every American school child not immediately know the answer to that simple question, as they all once did?

Marxist dominated public education has done its work, directed as it is by a government that is dominated by Marxist thought. Beginning over a hundred years ago, our government was first infiltrated, then predominated, and finally dominated by convinced Marxists who oppose the American Republic and the American Constitution, as being imperfect, and therefore “unfair.” Having abandoned their religion, they no longer know that perfection is not of this world, but the next. They seek to impose Marxist perfection on the world in order to change it and make it “perfect.” And they intend to do this to the world whether the world likes it or not.

The Founding Fathers knew full well that a literal Democracy could not work. Pure Democracy can only work with very small groups of people, as might fit around one conference table; whole populations cannot vote on every issue and make every decision for a whole society; it just doesn’t work. Even around a conference table, some sort of rule-of-law is needed, recognized by all participants, or the whole thing ends in utter chaos. That’s why everybody has recognized “Robert’s Rules of Order” for so many decades. Somebody has to hold the gavel and people need to take turns in an orderly manner. So even in the smallest gatherings the importance of rule of law soon supersedes mere rule of men. There is no nation on earth that I am aware of that is a pure Democracy.

The term Democracy in common usage today does not mean pure Democracy, or unlimited Democracy, or literal Democracy. When we refer to a nation as a Democracy what we really mean is to differentiate it from a dictatorship or an un-free land. In common parlance Democracy has come to mean a free-world country. That’s what Reagan meant when he said that (paraphrasing here) “Democracies don’t go to war with each other.” He meant, by Democracy, free lands where the citizens enjoy liberty and open opportunity, and representative government.

Most free lands today are some form of Parliamentary Democracy. England has evolved into a rare combination of Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy, in which the power of royalty is greatly tempered, but still in existence. Most of Europe has been sliding into Social Democracies, or what Lenin called “Democratic Republics.” He saw the Democratic Republic as a stepping stone to Communist takeover. The systematic failures that movement toward and into pure Democracy would sooner or later culminate in the ultimate national crisis to be capitalized on by a ruthless Party, and the nation would go anarchist first, then Communist.

America is really, really unique. First, there’s the 50 sovereign states, each with its own Constitution, Governor, Vice Governor, House of Representatives, Senate and Supreme Court. All of these unique and wildly differing states are just as strongly represented at the federal level as are it’s citizens. That is a key point. In the original design, the states each appoint two senators to represent the state in the United States Senate. They are not politicians; they are US Senators. This is the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. The individual states also, by their own rules, elect “electors” who actually elect the national President. This was designed to insulate the process from pure majoritarianism, which is to say, pure Democracy, or lynch-mob mentality. States with small populations still have two Senators, the same as everybody else, and the electoral college levels the field even more between states. State governments have just as much to say as do state populations.

We must repeal Amendment XVII. The 17th Amendment changed the selection of Senators to be by popular vote as with the House of Representatives. It has proved a political failure, in that the Senate has been reduced to a mere copy of the House, with periodic political contests and Senators and Candidates campaigning among the voting public for the opportunity to represent the voters rather than the State. The 17th Amendment moved us away from being a Republic and toward becoming a pure Democracy, which as we have seen carries with it the danger of moving toward pure majoritarianism, or mob rule.

Pure Democracy is the path to crisis, systematic failure, anarchy and chaos. Lenin knew it before any of us were born, and he hoped to capitalize on it.

One House is supposed to be representative, meaning political, and the other is supposed to be above politics. Since adoption of Amendment XVII, Senators have become politicians no different than Representatives. Indeed, they often work together on scandalous pork-barrel projects for local area needs that have no legitimate business whatsoever even being considered at the national government level. Sticking a line item into a defense bill to fix a pothole in front of the Podunk-Junction post office should be immediately recognized as unconstitutional, but it isn’t. It has become the norm, in both houses.

Repeal of this Amendment would revert back to Article I Section 3 as written by the Founders, in which we see that Senators are chosen by State Legislatures, and serve at the pleasure of the State, not at the pleasure of the citizens. U.S. Senators would therefore be above the political fray and would represent the interests of the sitting State Government, much as any Ambassador or Diplomat would represent the United States to a foreign government. The whole idea of an Upper House was to have Senators representing the interest of their States, and not the state’s population, on an equal footing with the House of Representatives, who’s members each represent the interests of the voters in their respective state districts.

The idea is that a very populace state could not necessarily carry more political clout than a lesser populated state, for the rule of the Senate is equal to the rule of the House, and acts as a counter-balance to pure majority vote. If both houses of Congress are elected by popular vote, that defeats the original intention of the Founding Fathers, which was to prevent that very thing.

Since adoption of the 17th Amendment, our Senate has degenerated into a body similar to the House, with both Houses guilty of participating in a virtual political feeding frenzy over illegitimate Earmarks for constituents and immoral if not illegal Pork, and disgusting Pork Barrel Politics. We have got to bring this to an end if possible; a good start is to immediately remove one House of Congress from the realm of popular and populist politics.

Another good idea might be to impose term limits on the House; but that’s another subject for another day. Here, I state the case for repeal of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. That’s my opinion; what’s yours?

Some further food for thought:

“ … the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.” –Communist Manifesto.

The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic. --Vladimir Lenin.

Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence. --Karl Marx.

"We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago. I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.” –Hilary Clinton.

It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. --Joseph Stalin.

If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees. --Bill Clinton.

Democracy is the road to socialism. --Karl Marx.

Reference Material

Return to Arguments Pro and Con page

Return to Web Site Log (Blog) page

Return to HOME PAGE

Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement)

Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.