RE: The US Senate Race in Kansas
“Independent” Greg Orman, who has so many Democrat Party operative working on his campaign one expects to see Nancy Pelosi’s name on his campaign headquarters door, has stated that he will caucus with whatever party presents the best ideas.
Mr. Orman’s campaign website states:
“If Greg is elected, there’s a reasonable chance that neither party would have a majority in the US Senate. If that is the case, he will work with the other independent Senators to caucus with the party that is most willing to face our country’s difficult problems head on and advance our problem-solving, non-partisan agenda.”
Therein lays the problem, and a perfect example of: a) how constitutionally illiterate our political class has become; b) how constitutionally illiterate our citizenry has become; and c) why the 17th Amendment is the most damaging action ever executed by the Progressive Left throughout US history.
When the Progressives of the early 20th Century marshaled through the 17th Amendment, they did a great damage to the symbiotic set of checks and balanced that achieved protections for both the individual and the individual states, where the power of the federal government was concerned. Under the guise of putting more control of government into the hands of the people, the Progressives, under Woodrow Wilson, literally destroyed the check and balance that protected state sovereignty and, through that erosion, the sovereignty of the individual.
At its inception, the US Constitution mandated, in Article I, Section 3, that:
“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 appointment of senators by the state legislators thwarted political faction on the floor of the US Senate. With each senator held accountable by their respective state legislatures for their votes, alliances and actions, the onus for political survival for the senatorial class was devotion to the well-being of their home states. The political ideology or factional allegiance of the senator was irrelevant for the most part. If a senator chose political party over the needs of his home state, the state legislature could – and would – simply recall him through an act the State House, replacing the senator with someone who held allegiance to his home state – and the constitution of that home state – above national political faction.
Understanding this original intent that the Framers built into the Constitution, the idea of Obamacare, or suffocating national debt, or an aggressive IRS, EPA or NSA, would never have come to be. The unfunded mandates of Obamacare would have seen the 54 senators from the 27 states that refused to establish ACA health insurance exchanges – and most likely more from states that did – voting against the bill in its infancy because the legislation harms the well-being of the individual states and usurps the authority of most every state’s constitution. So too, the national debt would never have been allowed to accumulate because it passes down to the citizens of individual states. The IRS would be little more than a gaggle of accountants, the EPA would not exist and the NSA wouldn’t be allowed to operate on US soil, if at all.
Simply put, there would be no party politics in the US Senate. It would be an assembly of representatives of each state’s government, tasked specifically and exclusively with the protection of the home state and her constitution. The passage of the 17th Amendment killed that protection and facilitated political faction on a national level to metastasize in the US Senate, something Pres. George Washington warned vehemently about in his Farewell Address.
The 17th Amendment mandates:
“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…”
By tricking – and that’s exactly what the Progressives did – the populace into thinking the popular election of their senators gave them more power over government, it literally established the opposite; delivering great power to national political parties and the federal government, while extinguishing an essential check and balance over said political parties and the federal government. The 17th Amendment took power away from the people and the states, and delivered it to the political parties and the federal government.
So, why is the Senatorial Election in Kansas a perfect example of constitutional illiteracy and Progressive manipulation? Would the 17th Amendment have not been passed Mr. Orman wouldn’t need – or aspire – to caucus with any political faction or party. He would, instead, be carrying out the will of the Kansas State Legislature and, through them, the will of the people of his state. There would be no need – or desire – to “caucus” with those of any particular political “flavor” because the well-being of each state is dictated by the needs of each state and her people, not the leaders of any political party.
To wit, imagine that the 17th Amendment had never passed, or that a smart-thinking Congress repealed it. No longer would we see any – any – legislative gridlock; no longer would we amass unrepayable debt; no longer would we see hyper-partisan or ideological pieces of legislation rammed down our throats; no longer would the American people – and her government – be held hostage to politics…no long would the American people be held hostage to politics.
Still think Progressives are on the side of the people? Yeah, neither do I…I haven’t for a very, very long time.
Thanks, Frank. You managed to somehow to to clarify a couple of murky areas re”17th” in this old gray head. I was ‘cross-thinking’ on appointments…I have always thought ‘progressive’ or ‘liberals’ worked for self and like only. The same reasoning suggests to me that it is not totally ‘dis-similar’ to what leadership from the uber uber Conservative would offer. ALL representation at all levels in the Federal Government is for ALL the people. Seems it would be in the interest of ‘we the people’ to revert to the protection of our Founders intent. The very least advantage would be to ‘force’ some old fashioned “personal responsibility’
Thanks Frank. At the time the people and even the States had been swayed into believing that thru the Senate the “big, bad Capitalist Robber Barons” were about to take over the Government thru the Senate simply by buying it. (That they were considered Robber Barons in the first place were the result of years of Communist Socialist LiES by those whose intentions were to destroy government ever since May of 1776.)
They also pointed to the “inflated” short-coming of the Senator selection process as, occasionally, a seat would be left vacant while State legislators “dallied” about filling it; there were indeed times when a seat would be vacant but it was hardly a comparative issue to so drastically change our government with an Amendment to the Constitution. Nevertheless it seems that Congress came under such “enormous” pressure (by threat of a States Convention) that they passed the 16th and 17th Amendments, in part, to pre-empt that convention – or so they said.
The 17th Amendment in particular is an illegal Amendment on the grounds that it was the only Amendment that had to have 100% ratifications by the States;
Article V, last line “…and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate!!!!!!!!!” (Explanation points added in disgust.)
I believe it was the State of Utah that rejected the Amendment and several did not ratify by simply not voting on it. Furthermore the State of Ohio had not been properly admitted into the Union in the first place – at that point!
Precedence has NO PLACE in the Constitution because it is NOT Case Law. Therefore this condition continues to exist to this day. We the People SHOULD sue the Federal Government to throw out the 17th Amendment – it doesn’t even need to be repealed – on this Constitutional principle; that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate!