Subscribe
RSS
Mobile
For the benefit of the Department of Homeland Security, Southern Poverty Law Center, MSNBC, all Progressives, Socialists, and outright Communists -- this article is not about anti-government organizations. It is about organizations filled with members who love the United States of America and are sick and tired of watching its leaders ignore the Constitution, trample individual freedom, and impose near-despotic rule.
The emergence of Tea Party and 912 groups across the country are just the first bubbles in a pot that has begun to boil. Thousands of groups have formed and are now monitoring local governments, conducting regular education sessions for their members, locating, grooming, and funding candidates, and preparing to rid the nation’s leadership of all officials who display anti-Constitution tendencies.
In Maine, for example, a group has formed called The Fourth Awakening, which says:
“Our purpose is to restore the Republic gifted to us in 1776 by our Founding Fathers whose vision we cherish and whose vision we intend to reclaim in full. In essence we reject the ideology of the Marxist progressives, we reject big government; we reject the subversion of our Constitution, our religious and personal rights….”
This group hopes to create a national movement among the states through which each state will create what they call an “Electoral Assembly” which will provide greater participation by citizens in the oversight of candidate selection, elections, lawmaking, rulemaking, and the implementation of government.
While many of the ideas expressed by this group may be unrealistic, their passion for a return to the original Republic designed by the Founders is quite clear.
Another group in Wyoming is trying to launch a campaign calling on states to initiate nullification legislation. Nullification is the Constitutional theory that since states created the federal union, states have the last word in determining whether they will honor laws created by the federal union.
This theory has been tested several times in U.S. history. Current efforts are likely to meet the same fate as previous efforts, but the effort is another bubble in the boiling pot of dissatisfaction with the direction of the federal government.
The nullification initiative hit the nail on the head in its explanation for the campaign:
“The sovereign states lost congressional representation of states’ interests in 1913 with the passage of the 17th Amendment, which removed the constitutional right of each state legislature to choose two representatives of state interests, to be seated in the U.S. Senate.”
The 17th Amendment is the problem. The solution is to repeal the 17th Amendment. There is no need for states to create “Electoral Assemblies.” There is no need to reinvent the “nullification” wheel. There is a great need to repeal the 17th Amendment, which is likely to be the only realistic way to stop a runaway federal government.
The Founders who fought tooth-and-nail for four months in Philadelphia did so because they loved freedom and hated despotism. They knew the only way to prevent a government from becoming despotic was to create multiple power sources and force them to compete, and to require eventual agreement before any new law could be imposed upon the people.
The purpose for having a bicameral legislature was to have two separate constituencies examine proposed legislation. The House of Representatives represented the people; the Senate – chosen by state legislatures – represented the states. These two sources of power had to agree on all legislation before it could go to the President. The President, another power source, had to agree before any proposal could become law.
The 17th Amendment obliterated this carefully designed system by removing the states from participation. What remained was a bicameral legislature representing a single constituency, divided only by Party affiliation. Thus began the tug-of-war between two political persuasions for control of the power government possesses. Before the 17th Amendment, the purpose of government was to protect the inherent rights of its citizens and to defend them from all enemies foreign and domestic. After the 17th Amendment, the purpose of government evolved into the enforcement of political theories the ruling Party believed to be most suitable for the people.
Stated differently, before the 17th Amendment, people were free to do whatever they wished so long as their freedom did not infringe upon the rights of others. After the 17th Amendment, the federal government became the mechanism through which the Party in power could impose its ideas about how people ought to live.
A coalition of organizations has now formed and is now spreading across the nation with the single goal of repealing the 17th Amendment. Tea Party and 912 groups as well as property rights and fair tax groups, gun rights groups, and many others are joining forces to repeal the 17th Amendment in order to once again give states a seat at the federal table.
Only by restoring the states to the federal government process can there be any hope of stopping a runaway federal government.
___
Henry Lamb is the author of “The Rise of Global Governance,” Chairman of Sovereignty International , and founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO) and Freedom21, Inc..
January 24, 2011 @ 8:59 am
I don’t find any of the initiatives described in Mr. Lamb’s article as “unrealistic”. Resisting federal overreach requires an “all-of-the-above” approach. My inclination is to rely upon determined nullification. It is far more than an interesting “theory”. It has been successfully relied upon by the States in the past, and there’s absolutely no reason why it wouldn’t be successful once again. Jefferson himself described nullification as the “rightful remedy” to federal encroachment and judicial tyranny. In combination with the Attys General suit against the Obamacare, nullification initiatives, calls for a Art V Constitutional Convention, congressional attempts to repeal Obamacare, constitute extremely powerful and, in the end, likely insuperable arguments against Obamacare, but also against federal tyranny. All grassroots and state initiatives intended to restore state-federal co-equality should be celebrated and supported.
January 24, 2011 @ 9:28 am
Agree. The requirement that Senators be elected State wide rather than appointed by the governor (with advise and consent of state legislatures) is probably one of the worst amendment passed. It gave the federal government substantially more power at the expense of the states and the people than was ever intended by our founding fathers, resulted in the ability of our congress to pass knee-jerk bad legislation without proper checks, and increased the corruption that runs rampant in our federal legislatures as a result of appeasement of special interest. (Not to mention the direct cost associated with the campaign process, which probably insures that the most qualified and capable senatorial candidate is not often sent to represent the state’s and citizen’s legislative interest.)
January 24, 2011 @ 10:53 am
Great Comment & I agree. Former Senator Specter of PA is an excellent example of why states should appoint their senators and not rely on the machine to decide who is to run. This guy should and would have been gone a long time ago if the 17th Amendment was not implemented. I for one am very greatful that he is now history.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Pray for our troops.
January 24, 2011 @ 10:59 am
Somehow, restoring balance between the States and the Federal government is something that we have to find and implement because it has gotten out of hand to a large extent. The Obamacare legislation is the latest example of a federal government that has gone over the top.
I am not sure about letting the State select its own Senators to represent the State is the answer, although I see the arguments made in this article. For example, I live in California, and if the State legislature selected the Senators, it would probably not change a thing. It is a Democratic controlled state legislature, and they would probably select losers like Pelosi and Boxer to represent the state. At least, the people out here have the opportunity to vote for their Senators in the current system and possibly elect a Republican or someone they like rather then letting the legislature do it all.
January 24, 2011 @ 11:27 am
In this matter, I honestly believe we should rely on the wisdom of our framers’s blueprint: to ensure the co-equality of the sovereign states and the national government and the direct influence of those states in the national legislative process, the States must have direct representation in DC. Otherwise, we have what we have now: 2 yr reps and 6 yr reps (vs state delegates as originally intended) indistinguishable except for their terms of office, and none of them directly responsible to the State Legislatures who, by design, are duty-bound to interpose between the feds and the people if federal overreach occurs.
January 24, 2011 @ 1:00 pm
It might take a bit of research but if our people in Congress were elected by the State Legislatures as originally intended, I would be willing to assume that the Founders would probably have expected said Legislatures removing sitting Representatives and Senators should they not live up to expectations. Certainly not something we as voters can do (except at the ballot box and sometimes 6 years or even 2 is a long time to wait).
State Legislators would then be the ones on the hot seat for being responsible for the Federal Legislators…………we can see them up close and personal!
January 24, 2011 @ 11:32 am
Get rid of the idiots who think they can spend our money as though it grows on trees.
January 24, 2011 @ 3:04 pm
The Senate was originally intended to represent the State and the House was intended to represent The People.
Today, the average House member votes according to the party line, irrespective of what The People say…and the Senator votes according to what he knows is best for The People, who are too stupid to determine that.
So, under the 17th, we have both the Senate and House representing The People…nobody representing the State…and neither body listening those whom they do represent.