It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Todd Akin is currently in a primary race to be the Republican candidate to face Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill in Missouri. As part of the primary, Akin took part in a debate last week and tried to justify stripping Americans of their right to vote for their senators, which is guaranteed by the 17th Amendment of the Constitution.
Akin claimed that directly electing senators violates state’s rights.
Over the years, many Republicans have called for repealing the 17th Amendment, including Utah Senator Mike Lee, Texas Governor Rick Perry, and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, just to name a few. Akin is just the latest Republican to do so. But why do Republicans hate Americans having the right to elect their senators? The answer is that Republicans don’t trust the American people. If you haven’t noticed, Republicans have been making efforts across the country to severely restrict voting rights. From voter ID laws to voter purges, Republicans have a major problem with people having the right to vote. A New Hampshire Republican once said that college students shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they’ll vote liberal. And conservative preachers and [url=http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/07/460188/in-2009-derbyshire-argued-women-shouldnt-vote-women-voting-is-bad-for-conservatism/]writers[/u rl] have actually complained about women having the right to vote.
Judge Bybee has argued that the amendment led to the gradual "slide into ignominy" of state legislatures, with the lack of a state-based check on Congress allowing the federal government to supersede states.[2] This was partially fueled by the Senators; he wrote in the Northwestern University Law Review:
Politics, like nature, abhorred a vacuum, so senators felt the pressure to do something, namely enact laws. Once senators were no longer accountable to and constrained by state legislatures, the maximizing function for senators was unrestrained; senators almost always found in their own interest to procure federal legislation, even to the detriment of state control of traditional state functions.[21]
Rossum, concurring, gives the New Deal legislation as an early example of the expansion of federal regulation.[44] Ure agrees, saying that not only is each Senator now free to ignore his state's needs, Senators "have incentive to use their advice-and-consent powers to install Supreme Court justices who are inclined to increase federal power at the expense of state sovereignty."[45] Donald J. Kochan, for an article in the Albany Law Review, analyzed the effect of the Seventeenth Amendment on Supreme Court decisions over the constitutionality of state legislation. He found a "statistically significant difference" in the number of cases holding state legislation unconstitutional before and after the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, with the number of holdings of unconstitutionality increasing sixfold.[46]
17th Amendment impact
The following states did not ratify the Seventeenth Amendment
Utah (explicitly rejected amendment)
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Virginia
but its bigger than that, anything beyond the 13th amendment needs to go into the shredder if we're going to ever get back State's rights.
Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by frazzle
but its bigger than that, anything beyond the 13th amendment needs to go into the shredder if we're going to ever get back State's rights.
Well that's going a little far, I don't know about you but I think women's suffrage and due process are good things.
Why should the "people" not be able to vote for their Representative in the senate?edit on 30-5-2012 by Openeye because: (no reason given)
Women's suffrage? The Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantee the same rights to ALL citizens, it has always been the people elected to office throughout this country's history who have chosen to "set aside" certain people's equal rights based on skin color, gender, etc. That doesn't mean the laws weren't there, just that they were ignored and twisted. Even the Civil Rights Act would never have been necessary if elected representatives had acknowledged that the BoR was not limited and should not exclude any group of people.
And like I asked someone else earlier, has being allowed to vote in any way made your pursuit of happiness easier? Its an illusion.
Holy Cow, I forgot the most important one ~ the United Nations Treaty. Hasta la vista, baby!!!
Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by frazzle
Women's suffrage? The Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantee the same rights to ALL citizens, it has always been the people elected to office throughout this country's history who have chosen to "set aside" certain people's equal rights based on skin color, gender, etc. That doesn't mean the laws weren't there, just that they were ignored and twisted. Even the Civil Rights Act would never have been necessary if elected representatives had acknowledged that the BoR was not limited and should not exclude any group of people.
First off you cant anthropomorphize the constitution. Most if not all the writers of the constitution owned slaves and had wives that did not vote (women in New jersey could if they "met" the requirements but that was stopped between 1800 and 1810). They weren't ignored or twisted, they were simply interpreted differently.
Dred Scott
Racism and sexism were very alive back then, and if it wasn't for progressive thinkers in the late 19th and early 20th century it would still be much more prevalent. And IMO it still very much is but its just in the closet, just go to Darlington, SC and talk to some people about race down at the speedway.
These amendments solidified a progressive interpretation of aspects of the constitution, as oppose to the old "elitist" (if you will) view.
The extreme views that are being pushed by the right now days are amazing.
And like I asked someone else earlier, has being allowed to vote in any way made your pursuit of happiness easier? Its an illusion.
So democracy is an Illusion?
How should we be ruled then?
By feudal lords or military dictators?
ETA:
Holy Cow, I forgot the most important one ~ the United Nations Treaty. Hasta la vista, baby!!!
Yes lets just turn the clock back 150 years and isolate ourselves from the rest of the world as they progress and we devolve back into nationalism.
edit on 30-5-2012 by Openeye because: (no reason given)
Can you find any language in the Constitution or BoR that negates women's rights, or Black's rights? Of course you can't. And although its true that some of the leaders of that time were elitists and bigots, they could never have written something like that into law and expected it to be ratified. They actually did use tar and feathers back then. Also, the Bill of Rights was only passed after many of the delegates and states demanded it be added because they understood the dangers of unfettered power.
As for how we should be ruled, I'm hard pressed to figure out why the heck people think they NEED to be ruled in the first place. Aren't you capable of ruling yourself?
And you didn't answer my question: has being able to vote made your pursuit of happiness easier? If not, you should be pretty ticked off at the people you elected.
Eliminating the UN treaty would not end our ability to trade or negotiate with the rest of the world, however our future trade and those negotiations would not be dictated to us by unelected foreign powers, but by OURSELVES. Imagine that.
It sounds to me like the only people you trust are the elites, and the higher their office the more you trust them. Maybe you should just trust yourself more.
If your primary complaint is that the Constitution didn’t give women the right to vote, well, you probably already know that only white male landowners were given that right and we can be sure that there were also MANY white males of that era who were not landowners. Apparently the framers were trying to limit voting to people who had “skin in the game”, not based on the color of said skin or gender, but it was highly discriminatory and that’s just one of the issues I have with the original constitution’s language and intent.
“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” And that reminds me of the rep from Illinois yesterday screaming on the house floor and throwing pages of legislation that “cannot be read or understood” all over his colleagues.
But the Bill of Rights is the PEOPLE’S legal meat and potatoes and it has been skewed, screwed, blued and tattooed by representatives who were elected by people too ill-informed, misinformed and just plain too lazy to study the issues the candidates campaigned on, or know their previous voting records and personal integrity. It’s all about pretty lies and empty promises. Anything but the harsh ugly truth of who and what we have become and how we got that way.
Finally, why do we need to be “dependent” on government or foreign nations to successfully deal with others humanely? Our inhumanity to man as well as financial straits worldwide have increased exponentially since the US created and then became dependent upon a foreign body’s (WTO) power to dictate with whom we must be “friends” and “enemies”.
This, once again, is not a right / left paradigm, its basic common sense because the bird’s brain that causes both wings to flap IS the plutocracy. That’s why you’re not happy.
But I disagree that this problem only goes back a hundred years
And a world government would be no different, it would still be a few greedy, grasping individuals calling the shots and hoarding all the good stuff for themselves because its just human nature that the kind of people who seek power over others are generally the least deserving of it. And it would be even harder to contain or to throw off the worst offenders.
Its my own belief that the purest democracies in the world have always been practiced by the original indigenous peoples and the secret to their thousands of years of cultural success was that decisions were strictly localized and involved the WHOLE people of a tribe or band. There was no “Iron Fist”. And of course their destruction wasn’t due to corruption or political squabbling, or even wars, as ours will be, they were invaded by outsiders and destroyed.
So when Americans talk about the wonders of democracy they seldom consider that several generations of our forefathers were actually responsible for its bloody end. Again, democracy ONLY works when its kept local and everyone participates. The bigger it gets, the more whacked out it gets.
The only reason this nation was prosperous in earlier decades is because there was always room for expansion and a pyramid scheme will not work for long unless there’s room to continually grow the base. Now there’s no more room to grow unless it can be stolen from someone else, so that’s what we do and the UN is in full support of those actions.
he United States has become the most intolerant butchers of mankind the world has ever known, all based on lies and greed and room to expand.