Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Repeal the 17th Amendment

March 25, 2010 by  

If not for the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, Obamacare would probably never have passed. That’s because the Senate would have been more attuned to the will of the public that disapproved of Obamacare by a large margin.

As Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States says: 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.

During the Constitutional ratifying convention, John Jay, co-author of The Federalist Papers, said “The Senate is to be composed of men appointed by the state legislatures… I presume they will also instruct them, that there will be a constant correspondence between the senators and the state executives.”

As historian and author Thomas J. DiLorenzo writes in The Lunatic Left is Getting Desperate on Lewrockwell.com: “The legislative appointment of U.S. senators was responsible for the most famous declarations of the states’ rights philosophy of the founders, the nullification philosophy as expressed in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves of 1798 (authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison respectively).

“John Quincy Adams resigned from the Senate in 1809 because he disagreed with the Massachusetts state legislature’s instructions to him to oppose President James Madison’s trade embargo. Senator David Stone of North Carolina resigned in 1814 after his state legislature disapproved of his collaboration with the New England Federalists on several legislative issues. Senator Peleg Sprague of Maine resigned in 1835 after opposing his state legislatures’ instructions to oppose the re-chartering of the Second Bank of the United States. When the U.S. Senate censured President Andrew Jackson for having vetoed the re-chartering of the Bank, seven U.S. Senators resigned rather than carry out their state legislatures’ instructions to vote to have Jackson’s censure expunged. One of them was Senator John Tyler of Virginia, who would become President of the United States in 1841.

“In other words, the original system of state legislative appointment of U.S. Senators did exactly what it was designed to do: limit the tyrannical proclivities of the central government. As Professor Todd Zywicki of George Mason University Law School has written, ‘the Senate played an active role in preserving the sovereignty and independent sphere of action of state governments’ in the pre-17th Amendment era prior to 1913. ‘Rather than delegating lawmaking authority to Washington, state legislators insisted on keeping authority close to home…. As a result, the long-term size of the federal government remained fairly stable and relatively small during the pre-Seventeenth-Amendment era’ (emphasis added).”

When the 17th Amendment was ratified it changed the way senators were selected from appointment to popular election. Therefore senators are now more influenced by lobbyists and payoffs than they are by the constituents they are supposed to serve. Hence, the passage of Obamacare and other noxious bills.

It’s clear once again that the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. Yet the group of socialists, and central bankers controlling government in 1913 saw a way to further strip the Constitution of its safeguards and an unwitting public went along.

It’s time to repeal the 17th Amendment. It’s not going to be easy—those senators are now entrenched and will not be amenable to relinquishing their power. But if we’re to take our country back it’s got to happen.

Because, as Madison wrote in Federalist No. 48, “The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.”

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American and author of The Bob Livingston Letter™, founded in 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Repeal the 17th Amendment”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • NANCYRUSSELL

    WAS THE 17TH AMENDMENT EVER PROPERLY RATIFIED? IF NOT, HOW HARD WOULD IT BE TO GET RID OF IT?

  • NANCYRUSSELL

    WAS THE 17TH AMENDMENT EVER PROPERLY RATIFIED? IF NOT, HOW HARD WOULD IT BE TO GET RID OF IT?

  • American liberal

    It’s laughable that you rightys think you can live like they did 250 yearsago….it’s not healthcare you hate… It’s that we elected a president you hate….the polls show that the majority of American now back the healthcare bill…ever wonder how many of these tea party people collect social security or use Medicare or have used unemploent insurance when they needed it…

    • retired Navy

      You must be reading the far left polls. The polls I have seen do not favor this health care plan. And, the American people don’t like the
      plan because they dislike Obama. It is bad legislation for the country and will bankrupt us. You need to open your eyes and realize just exactly is happening in the country. And, I am not a tea party person,
      but I have earned my right to SS, Medicare/Medicade and my Military retirement. I don’t like the idea of the government taking away all the rights I have fought for. You are such a putz. Grow up and wake up.

      • Lisa

        I do agree with you, you have earned your right to military Retirement. Those that hav served in the military should be taken care of. However, you need to get your news from sources othe than Fox, and Rush. Check around serveral places and see hat you find.

        Someone here hit the nail on the head. It’s not healthcare, it’s the President. The right wing extremist have encouraged this hatred and thos in the government have let it spread because they see a way to gain power from it. Thing is, the right had the power and lost it fairly. Now they are just playing games with everyone’s lives and using pasinate peope like you as pawns. Wake up please.

        Poll: Health care plan gains favor
        By Susan Page, USA TODAY
        WASHINGTON — More Americans now favor than oppose the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds — a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against the legislation.
        By 49%-40%, those polled say it was “a good thing” rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms — as “enthusiastic” or “pleased” — while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as “disappointed” or “angry.”

        The largest single group, 48%, calls the legislation “a good first step” that needs to be followed by more action. And 4% say the bill itself makes the most important changes needed in the nation’s health care system.

        “After a century of striving, after a year of debate, after a historic vote, health care reform is no longer an unmet promise,” Obama declared in a celebration at the Interior Department auditorium with members of Congress, leaders of advocacy groups and citizens whose personal stories were cited during the debate. “It is the law of the land.”

        LAWSUITS: 13 AGs sue over health bill
        HEALTH BILL: How six groups will be affected
        BUSINESS: Employers unclear on impact

        To be sure, the nation remains divided about the massive legislation that narrowly passed the House late Sunday. Minutes after Obama signed the bill in the East Room, attorneys general from 13 states — led by Bill McCollum of Florida — sued to block the law as unconstitutional. Virginia filed separately.

        Nearly one-third of those surveyed, 31%, say the bill makes “the wrong types of changes,” and 8% say the health care system doesn’t need reform.

        The poll of 1,005 adults Monday has a margin of error of +/—4 percentage points.

        The findings show receptive terrain as the White House launches efforts to sell the plan, including a trip by Obama to Iowa on Thursday. “The political tides shifted with passage of the bill,” White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer says. “It’s easy to demonize something large and complex in theory; harder when it becomes law.”

        No one gets overwhelmingly positive ratings on the issue, but Obama fares the best: 46% say his work has been excellent or good; 31% call it poor. For congressional Democrats, 32% call their efforts on health care excellent or good; 33% poor.

        Congressional Republicans, all of whom voted against the bill, are viewed more negatively. Although 26% of those surveyed rate the GOP’s effort as excellent or good, 34% say it has been poor.

        Republicans vow to stall a final package of fixes to the bill now being debated in the Senate.

        In the new USA TODAY survey and one taken a month ago, the biggest shift toward support of the bill was among low-income Americans, minorities and those under 40. That has created a yawning age divide: A solid majority of seniors oppose the bill; a solid majority of those younger than 40 favor it.

        • John T

          Ok Lisa, you want to present articles from well read newspapers? Here is a paper that may be read by more informed people that actually read the bill rather than relying on someone else to tell them what it says.

          http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=528137

          20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms
          By David Hogberg
          Posted 03/23/2010 08:28 PM ET

          If some reports are to be believed, the Democrats will pass the Senate health care bill with some reconciliation changes later today. Thus, it is worthwhile to take a comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose.

          Of course, the bill is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care. We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin’s adage, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”

          The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.

          1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

          2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

          3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

          4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

          5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employees’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

          6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
          You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

          7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d)(1)(A))

          8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

          9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 50 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).
          10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

          11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

          12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A)).

          13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

          14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

          15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

          16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).
          The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

          17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

          18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

          19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).
          That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

          20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

          • Jo

            John T. Wow
            Great job breaking this down. If people still don’t understand after reading this break down (and I know it is just 20 out of much more) than I don’t know what more can be said. When reading your points it struck me all the jobs that will be lost and I have friends in some of those industries you mentioned.
            Question: Is it ok with you if I copy and share this with others? With due credit.

        • http://charter howe

          Lisa I don’t know how to break the news to you, but most reagan conservatives and many independaents do not like President Obama’s Ideology and his determination to push a socialistic agenda. If you wanted to be honest, its not about Obama or making it a racial issue like some have suggested, its about policy that is bad for our country. For example, Healthcare for everyone and free for those that can’t afford it is a wonderful idea, but when the cost of this entitlement will bankrupt the country or at a minimum most of the states that have to pay most of the medicaid impact, it begins to look like a program that is unaffordable and will shut down health care even for those who can afford it using a private pay. Your poll numbers are no doubt taken from only democrats, since most think taxing and spending is a really great idea. The poll which people should use is the national impartial professional pollsters like Rasmussen and Pew to mention a few. The health care bill polled by Rasmussen shows that a large majority of Americans did not like the Obamacare plan and still dislike it enough right now that 14 states have filed lawsuits to repeal Obamacare and there is a good chance that this job killing, budget busting, govt overreach will be repealed when the Supreme court gets to rule on it. You had better hope that it is either repealed or enough Republicans and sane democrats are voted in to replace Obamacare with incremntal affordable fixes before we all have to learn Chinese since they own over a trillion dollars worth of our debt and growing at an alarming rate to where it will be difficult in ten years to pay just the interest. Is that what you want for your kids or family. There are no free rides and we are so heavy into entitlements in this country that over half the people don’t even pay tax and are on some kind of welfare including many illegals using our welfare system and our resources not having paid a dime of tax. I worked 50 years of my life to draw social security and it will go awaay in about two to three years, and since I am a senior I will lose medicare because of rationing brought on by a 500 billion dollar cut by Obamacare to pay for creating 159 new govt agencies to monitor and control healthcare and 16,500 IRS employees to make sure everyone buys and pays for it. Think of the govt payroll alone, its a scary figure and it doesn’t create very many private sector jobs which are needed to offset the taxes needed to fund govt offices. I hope you will spend a little more time doing meaningful research. Its our country thats at stake.

        • gary

          The right wing extremist have encouraged this hatred. YOU SAY.
          The right wing is only expressing their free speach, only liberals call it hatred.

    • Independent

      When and if this President and his followers get thru all of their “fudamental changes” they would like to have accomplished, you may then see the error of your short sighted do for me because I won’t ways. Short sighted planning and vision do not a country make and in the end, if the government controls all and supplies every thing you will know true tyranny, like Cuba, China, former USSR and all other oppresive states which limit individual freedom and thought to conform to the masses that will not, to even out all to be the same so exeptional individuals can prosper, to slow development to the one’s that will not further their development due to lack of will or foresight. Seems as thoug this type of stuff leads to revolutions.

    • tom

      I don’t know anybody that is for it.

    • Captain

      Your language abilities indicate that you’re from, how did you put it…’250 yearsago’ and that us ‘American’ just hate the president. All those tea party people you so eloquently (that means with eloquence) mention are the taxpayers that are most likely paying for your, again, how did you put it ‘unemploent insurance’, which, no doubt, you are on because you never graduated from anything because of your entitlement mentality. This is hate filled speech, just like your’s is. That’s what hate speech does. It provokes more. “GET THE LOG OUT OF YOUR EYE BEFORE YOU TRY TO REMOVE THE SPLINTER OUT OF MINE” JESUS SAID THAT!!!!!!!We’re all Americans. Why do we have to hate each other??????

    • True Liberal

      Are you for real? A Liberal person will not demean their comments with trivial name calling but back them with stated and substantiated facts! personally I tire of those who give the identity of Liberal a bad conotation. Those who wish to hide who they literally are, typically violent based loud mouthed self-angrandizing power hungry, individuals who disallow the opinions and Freedom of speach through their “Hate-Mongering Verbage” do so under the true and hideous hidden guise of either an incompetant moronic action or by virtue of their Marxist and Communist hidden agenda’s intended to enslave the Human Race through squelching honest opposition because they fear that people of good sense, logic, with a structure of descent morals might have the view of all sensible Humans who love the earth they live on and want the best for “ALL Humans regardless of Personal choices and want to live with the incumberances of “Forced Control Agents” such as those founded by organizations like thee IRS, Marxists and Communists. Take a hint, the public of America is not entirely dim! They are CONSERVATIVE and Moral by nature. Speak to them intelligibly and with respect or your words will convince o one but only create commedy and frustration, as you just did.

    • GregS

      Lisa and American liberal, you BOTH need to get your facts straight on American opinion about the healthcare bill. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the first two nights after the president signed the bill, shows the following:

      1. 55% favor repealing the legislation.
      2. 42% oppose repeal.

      With regard to the elections in November:

      1. 52% say they’d vote for a candidate who favors repeal over one who does not.
      2. 41% would cast their vote for someone who opposes repeal.

      This bill is NOT popular! I will NOT stand!

      • GregS

        I meant to say, “It will not stand!”

      • Anthony

        If I remember correctly – it takes 51% to pass a bill, unless there is a filibuster, and then it’s more.

        But – once a measure is passed, I believe it takes a 75% majority to repeal it. And you almost never get that on anything.

  • http://www.mezzatestacustomcycles.com Anthony Mezzatesta

    Robert,
    Almost every time I read one of your articles, I learn more of the brilliance of our founders and thank the Eternal One for you.
    Keep up the fight. May the Lord uphold you.
    Anthony

  • Dan Burke

    While I would agree with repealing the 17th amendment, the only way this idea will work is if America actually shifts in mentality to support this idea and accepts to do other harm. Unfortunately, as wise as we might think we are, and how clever our ideas to fix the problems are, we can be just as short sighted in our solutions as our opposition (which we often believe is actually on a course to destroy America–whether intentionally or misdirected good intentions). Here is a problem that someone once pointed out and I am inclined to suspect is far more true than we want to admit, or maybe two possibilities.

    First, if you open the door to altering the Constitution, you are opening the door!!! Have you checked what you would be letting through the door?! America voted in this disaster of a government by a seemingly wide margin. And while Americans might be developing some regret for their choices, we must first ask if they have changed their way of thinking. If they only regret their particular choice but have not changed their thinking that led to it (many of us have acknowledged and changed our thoughts because we realized our thoughts might be faulty as well as our choices), but to assume because we saw that our thoughts led to our choices that Americans will too… that is faulty thinking. Before we open the door, it would be best to know what we would be letting through. And considering the quality of representatives we choose for ourselves (and I don’t think you have to look far the examples of corruption, lies, etc), you would have to be very very cautious in opening any such door to the Constitution right now.

    Second, and here’s another twist. What about ourselves? Is there a risk that if people like us actually got a peek at “changing” the Constitution itself through amendment that we could swing the pendulum too far, too fast in a different direction? I know many of us don’t like where America is going, but do we really have self-restraint ourselves? And if we have self-restraint of that quality, why aren’t people like that getting elected and being our representatives? I didn’t like voting in the last election even though I did. My choices on the ballot were two major candidates I did not like and several for parties I did not trust or had never heard of (just because it says something like Constitution party doesn’t mean I will automatically vote for your candidate when I have no information whatsoever except the name of your party).

    When people talk about cleaning up Washington, and putting fear back into our representatives, then why aren’t we voting them out of the primaries? How fast would the Democrats change views if they weren’t even making the nominations to run again for their seat? Once a few lost their nominations, I imagine the rest might suddenly find a mysterious enlightenment.

    • ted crawford

      Dan,your comments are thought provoking! I will be thinking about them. That being said,however,I believe the door was opened by the framers of the Constitution. They,unlike our current leaders,were not consumed by their egos! They realized that they could not possibly anticipate all future needs of the nation. They wrote Artical 5 to handle that.
      I believe they expected us to have the courage to make the tough decisions to keep the Constitution relevant. If we should ever become afraid to look at our society and make any needed changes that is when the Constitution will become irrelevent!
      If this is one of the times to make a change will require more thought,at least on my part,

    • Anthony

      Dan – We are NOT talking about opening any door to “changing the Constitution” … you are reversing to a Constitutional Convention .. and THAT “IS” CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT NO REAL PATRIOT WANTS.

      What we are talking about is erradicating an Amendment to the Constitution – an entirely different event. They amended, and now they can UN-amend.

      It’s that simple.

      As far as what the People “think they know” … well, that’s up to each of us who actually do know .. you have other websites you visit, as do all of us. You have email addresses. You have friends to share beers with and talk this over with…. You know where this goes next.

  • Ralph Kautz

    Yes lets go back,also remove the Federal Reseve ie Bank of the United States,Andrew Jackson Did,Department of education,Return to state Jurisdiction,H.E.W. Disband return power to the States,Make Congress do their job Constitutionaly by regulating the Money Supply.And the only people who deserve Goverment Health Care are Members of our Armed Forces,Retirees from the former and Disabled Veterans.

    • tom

      The bank of Obummer.
      It’s not much of a health care plan, as it
      is a clean theft of our right’s.What a sneaky
      little scum bag. He is the worst president ever.

  • Ralph Kautz

    Yes lets go back,also remove the Federal Reseve ie Bank of the United States,Andrew Jackson Did,Department of education,Return to state Jurisdiction,H.E.W. Disband return power to the States,Make Congress do their job Constitutionaly by regulating the Money Supply.And the only people who deserve Goverment Health Care are Members of our Armed Forces,Retirees from the former and Disabled Veterans.

  • American liberal

    So you only like the Constitution when you can use it for your personal agenda ?.. Looks like the American people are in favor of the healthcare bill… You America haters and goverment haters lose again…and the American people won…. Great Job President Obama…

    • Publius

      Please move to Cuba. You’ll like it there.

    • Darrel

      Clearly “American Liberal” is proud of his title. Sadly, it shows just how headstrong he is, and why he won’t listen to common sense. Clearly Obamanation wants to redistribute wealth – that’s socialism. If you can’t see that, you don’t have the right to even debate it, and certainly aren’t informed enough to vote. Who is going to be left to pay the ridiculous taxes to support you? No one, because he is killing capitalism, the fuel that runs the economy. And when the military is weakened enough by these “policies”, our enemies will walk in and take over. Who will support you then? Use your brain for a change and see the light! Stop being awestruck by the smooth talking rock star in the White House! And stop trying to deflect the blame. The Demolitions controlled Congress the last 4 years before Obamanation and refused to act on many of the issues including Freddie Mac and Fannie May. And those crooks (Barney Frank et al) are not in jail! How can that be?

    • Anthony

      Relax guys … it’s only bait conversation.

  • Edward Krieger

    Check out Devvy Kidd’s website at Devvy.com. Her latest

    article,titled National Arhives Seventeenth Amendment,has

    a lot to say about the subject.

  • Jack Waters

    Our dear American Liberal must be a product of our liberal dominated education system. From 1913 to 2010 is not 250 years. It would not be difficult or dangerous to repeal the 17th Amendment. It was done with prohibition. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th amendment. It would not open up any can of worms, since all proposed amendments in the past have covered one specific area. We also need an amendment extending the presidential term limits to the rest of the Federal Government. I have never seen anything in the writings of our Founding Fathers to indicate that they planned for or expected a class of “professional politicians”. Of course, the problem with any of this would be convincing this present Congress to propose any of the needed amendments and the fact that our present Congress and administration ignore any parts of the Constitution that they don’t like.

    • American liberal

      Jack, nonsense….. Yesterday you rightys said you loved the constitution … Today since you didn’t get your way you want to amend it….let me just remind you how it works….. The people that win the elections get to push the agenda they ran on….. You guys got your patriot act and tax cuts for the Rich and Bush got his war aginst Iraq that he said even before he was elected that he was going to wage…. This healthcare bill was no secret and was 1 of our great presidents main goals… As it had been for decades….you need to be a good loser and shush up….most of us on the left understand that you hate the president ” We the People” elected….and it’s very clear some in the Tea party are violent hatefully people… I was aginst the Patriot act when it was Shoved down our throats… So now it may be a useful tool to round up the domestic terrorist trying to bully our democrat congressmen….maybe you’ll enjoy the nice weather they enjoy down at Gitmo…and if their ever had been something that was close to communism it was Bushs presidency and his patriot act… Your calling us socialist over healthcare but Bushs presidency was ok?.. Now sit down, behave and shut the hell up

      • Toby

        The sad thing is that the Republicans are acting like little kids because they didn’t get their way in the past few elections. They let a terrible President do whatever he wanted without question, Gave us a weak Republican Canidate, and then hurt him even more by giving him a wako running mate. And they wonder why they lost and want to blame Accorn for it.
        If the Republicans would have coroperated on healthcare, like they were asked to do, we would have gotten a totally differnt bill that could help a lot of people and everyone could take credit for it. But they decided to play games and just say no to everything. We should not be forced to buy insurance, but if you decide not to buy insurance then healthcare providers should have the right to not treat you if you can’t pay. There are lots of things but the Republicans are just acting childish and it’s clear they don’t have the countries best interest in mind anymore.
        We need a new congress and in Nov. the people have the power to do it. But will you?

        • Darrel

          American Liberal and Toby need to move to one of the countries that support their beliefs and leave the USA alone. Clearly they oppose anyone that is successful in business, since they keep wanting to punish them and ridicule anyone that has succeeded in our land of opportunity. Could it be they are too lazy to earn it themselves so they want to be bullies and take it away from those who are? Same thinking that the demos keep using talking about the “fat cat Republicans” in congress. Check again – the real fat cats (most worth and/or income) are democrats. But like the liars currently in Washington DC, they spin everything and plug their ears and sing “LA-LA-LA-LA” when confronted with truth.

      • True Liberal

        Once again you seek to isolate any contention with your theories and thereby substantiate the belief that your are ignorant and DECEIVING with little positive input to contribute. I challenge you to stop hiding under the Cloak of a Liberal, put on your RED Hood and be honest with all. Your hope for power by supporting tyrany will be your undoing. Stain exemplified the Communist methodology of destroying those who knew how you took Power. Your would-be colorful metaphors are super-sillious indignations that demean you comments.

      • ted crawford

        In case you have failed to notice,your dear leader just reinstated and stregthened the patriot act you so badly disliked!
        I wonder are there any progressives capable of original thought! It doesn’t appear so does it?

  • Lisa

    OK Here you go. You’re crying because the health Care Bill just passed takes away your freedom of choice. But now you’re willing to give up your freedom of choice to your state on who your senator is. It seems to me the people should be able to elect who represents us in the house and senate. We the people also now have the ability to vote out any one also. Giving us freedom of choice. What you are a republican and your state is mostly democrat. They are going to appoint a democrat senator and there’s nothing you can do about it. At least with the 17th admendment you can take peace in knowing that you did not vote for the bonehead in office. First oy cry because your freedom is being taken away, now you want it taken away.
    Also, The time before 1900 was generally a simpilar time in our history. With the industrial revolution of the late 1800′s and early 1900′s things became more complex as new technologies and industries became more common thus leading some to realize that more Government regulation was needed to protect the common man. You really need to get with the times.

    • Darrel

      I think most people expect the state legislatures to more correctly represent the will of the people and would make sure the elected/appointed representatives to the US Congress would do the same. We need to be able to clean house of those who don’t represent the people that elected them and are “free-lancing”. Term limits would be a great help.

  • Ann Amos

    Yeah obomber. good job. just over broke!

  • Greg for the Constitution

    Please let’s stop the name calling on both sides. It is uncalled for and we can have no civility to discuss ideas if we refer to our fellow countrymen with labels.

    A few observations. It seems that we are all paying for the pre-existing conditions collectively by paying into the program for several years without any benfits.

    Regarding being heard. Our form of government is supposed to be representative. Where elected officials vote according to the will of the people. The Seate did the same thing only for their State.

    When people need to raise large sums of money to get their message out so they can be voted in… this leaves many good people who would serve out of the process. Perhaps we should have nominamtions at the local and state level. This process would nullify the special interests being able to fund their specific candidate.

    Therefore repealing the above mentoioned ammendment makes sense. Let the state choose their own representatives to ensure the states rights are protected.

    While we are at it, looking at the Fair Tax would also limit the scope and size of government. All peopel residing here would participate and we could eliminate the IRS, save that money for health care or other programs and repeal that change to our government brought about also in 1913.

    • Darrel

      Sadly the name calling comes from frustration when the other party clearly is not listening at all – only talking down to others. The “we won – so get over it” attitude is not helping at all. And it seems to reflect the attitude of the majority in Congress right now.

  • Larry Drummond

    The US Constitution provided a government with checks and balances. The Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches provide a check on each other. In Congress the House of Representatives and the Senate provide another needed check and balance. That balance was eliminated with the passage of the 17th amendment. The Senate no longer represents the state but the people (another house of representatives).
    An amendment passes when 3/4 of the states approve it except that each state must consent to be deprived of its suffrage. Because the state can no longer direct the senator on voting the states have been deprived (on 3/4 approval).
    Then amendment process starts when 2/3 of Congress proposes an amendment OR 2/3 of the States request a convention for that purpose. The states may be of a mind to do this now but Congress would be better advised to do it or they may lose more than the 17th.

  • http://www.personalliberty.com/news/pediatric-patients-with-chronic-pain-look-to-acupuncture-19609231/ James A Graham

    Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

    As a widow of a military retiree, who stood with her husband for over 20 years while he served this country (which was the greatest in the world until this Congress and President took over), I have to say I agree. Shirley

    As a retired military man that have given over twenty-seven years of my life to my country, I truly feel that what this
    Country needs most is a new amendment to the Constitution . I am recommending that we add the 28th amendment to the Constitution of the UNITED STATES.

    For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that Congress members could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they didn’t pay into Social Security, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being considered…in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn’t seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don’t care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

    This is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come.

    Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

    “Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Congressman, Senators and Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Congressman. Senators and Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States”.

    This 28th amendment to the Constitution of the UNITED STATES Will apply to all passed, present and future
    congressman, Senators And Representatives.
    Just think of all the money this would save the tax payers!!!!!

    HTCM USN Retired James A. Graham E-Mail address is ( jagraham@charter.net ) Please forward !!!!!!!

  • American liberal

    The tea party and republicans are killing any rational discussion .. Just read the little kiddy names they call president Obama… Of course they’re going to claim that liberals and democrats called president Bush names… Wrong, president Bush had almost a 90% approval after 9/11… I was one of those liberals that was proud of president Bush when I heard him with the bullhorn saying the people that brought down these building are gonna hear from us soon.. I got goosebumps just hearing that.. But almost immediatly he started turning all his attention to Iraq and their were plenty of us that knew it wasn’t Iraq but it was Al qaeda and that’s when I went sour on Bush and that’s when I started calling him names and insults.. Theirs a huge diffrence in what president Bush did and what president Obama is trying to do… For gods sake.president Obama is trying to give 32 million Americans who don’t have healthcare coverage.. He’s not trying to wage an illegal war… It’s healthcare … If anything was ever socialist , communistic or Fascist it was Bushs presidency .. How can you rightwingers possible condem president Obama about being a socialist today’s but condon and supported Bushs war and patriot act….?… How can you possibly justify the hate towards us ( liberals ) and support the last administration?.., this countryside mentallity has gone backwards.. you conservatives better stop and think…. How can you want to turn to violence over healthcare… Where’s the logic?… Besides.. The bill plainly states NO FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ABORTIONS…. Stop letting Rush and Fox to do your thinking…

    • Darrel

      Yeah, there is a BIG difference. Bush acted on information that was believed to be correct about Iraq. And most of Congress, seeing the same information, supported the Iraq war. Obama doesn’t care about the information. He just reads his teleprompter and relays the lies being fed him.

    • True Liberal

      What world do you live in? It is insanely obvious that anyone in the United States can walk into an Emergency room and receive Medical Care. NOBODY has none except by choice. It is not your responsibility to take that choice from them! Bush had his screw-ups, but he took the war to them. I agree with that. I would have gone to Iran or Libia, Palestine myself. Obama takes the war to us! The “Would-Be” health care bill is nothing more than “Planned Parenthood”. Do you know what they do at planned parenthood centers? They plan abortions! The Health Care bill has been obviously stated by it’s Congressional supporters, and the videos and audios of their statements are readily available, the supporters say that it is to “Control the Public”. It is called healthcare, it is a step to tyranny! Look to the facts, read the signs, he is King! I am against Monarchs ruling whether his name is Hitler, or any other Dictator. I oppose your violence and consider you a confused or FAKE Liberal.

    • ted crawford

      wrong again! You should be used to it by now! Every policy sold through the “exchanges” must contribute one dollar to a fund for “reproductive health”. Abortion is included in the category of repreductive health, the bill does fund abortions!
      As to the “death panels” Section-1233– Pages 424thru431, like with the sauce “It’s in there!”

    • GregS

      American liberal, you said, “… Besides.. The bill plainly states NO FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ABORTIONS…. Stop letting Rush and Fox to do your thinking…”

      My question to YOU is WHERE in the bill does it “plainly state” that???

      You should stop letting the liberal news media do your thinking!

  • impeachyomama

    The latest poll of over 400,000 people showed 67% ANGRY at both the way this egregious bill was passed and the far reaching consequences that this bill contains (and that was as of Wednesday).
    Anyway, a post-er had earlier alluded to the very valid point that the 17th Amendment was never legally ratified by 2/3 of the States. There is very compelling proof of this given by research into National Archives by Edwin Veira(?) and many others, (Devvy Kidd has some extensive information about this).
    Had our Senators actually voted the “will of the people” the sickening Obamacare socialist monster would not have been given body and form.

    • American liberal

      Impeach… Give me your poll source…. My source is today’s CBS and usa today polls… They show the healthcare bill is being supported by Americans…. I suspect your poll might be Fox news poll?.. In any case…. Please leave a source ..the Cbs poll has America supporting the bill by 9 points… That’s pretty strong

      • Darrel

        Clearly you are listening to the spin again. The majority of Americans do NOT support the Obamacare and the “Stimulus” packages. Read the bills! Congress didn’t even think that was necessary! That is the epitome of arrogance and job failure! And you and most other liberals (not all, thank God) are still so star struck that you can’t see through the BS. Unfortunately, we are ALL about to go down the drain. Perhaps it is more “compassionate” that you don’t realize (yet) what is going to happen.

      • ted crawford

        You might want to check the ratings! More people watch The Cartoon Channel than your sources! Just say’n

  • Mattknowso

    Hope you libs never need gov’t health care. Know whats going on in Britain and Canada? So redistrubution of wealth is not socialism? Forcing people to buy insurance or be fined or go to jail is not socialism? Did you know Medicare and the VA reject a higher % of claims then private insurance? Look it up and weep for what you have done!!!

  • American liberal

    Gallup has America supporting the healthcare bill today.. March 25 at… 49% support …40% don’t support the healthcare bill…. And wait till more people realize the benifits to Americans….

  • American liberal

    Matt…. The last 8 years the redistrabution of wealth has gone to the top 2%… anything wrong with the other 98% getting some relief?… Unless you’re in the top 2 % I’m trying to understand you wanting to pay they’re taxes?…during the last decade the top 2% has become more wealthy than ever before….at the expense of the middle class… Durning the past decade the middle class has suffered the most…. I just never understand most of you on the right trying to defend the fact that youre paying 33.3 % in taxes while Bushs tax cuts have the top 2 % paying 15%…in 2011 we go back to the 90′s tax rate.. One of the reasons for this recession is the middle class has no money to buy goods…Of course Rush, Hannity and Glen Beck don’t want is to go back to the 90′s tax code… They’ll tell you over and over that Obama is going to raise taxes… And he is.. On the top 2 %…

    • Toby

      I’m sure Rush, Hannity and Beck are all in that 2% of wage earners so it makes sense that they are so opposed to it.

      While everyone is pointing fingers nobody wants to say that a lot of this mess is because jobs were outsouced to other countries like China. Jobs were sent to China and the cost of production went down but the cost of the product remained the same. Where did the extra money go?

      In the 1940′s and 50′s a person with little education could get a decent paying job in a factory. It usually only took one person working to provide for their family. But then look at their life style. They weren’t as greedy as they are now. Most Americans were happy with a 3 bedroom 1 bath home. But now everyone needs 6500 square feet with huge master suites and bathrooms. No wonder it takes two people working to pay bills.

      The answer is jobs. We need jobs. And not just high paying paper shuffle jobs that people have now, but factory production jobs where we actually make and export things again. I remember when something that was made in China or Hong Kong was a joke of a product. Now it’s the norm. That’s what needs to be changed.

      • Darrel

        Well, Toby, your “fearless leader” and other morons in DC are NOT interested in your Jobs point. I do agree that we need jobs. But our POTUS and Congress are working as hard as they can to grant amnesty to lawbreakers (illegals) to keep or take those jobs all because they want more voters who will re-elect them. So who are they REALLY looking out for? I am all for any immigrant who comes to this country LEGALLY and becomes a citizen. But for illegals to DEMAND amnesty – and our elected officials to even give that thought the time of day – is just wrong – if not treasonous.

    • http://charter howe

      Mr American Liberal, you wreak of entitlement so I guess a logical argument to address some incorrect statements you have made are probably a waste of time. I spent 29 years of my life in the military to protect and defend the Constitution and I will continue to do so even if it means battling ideologues like you that think hard working people should have to pay for the slouches that choose not to take advantage of the oppotunities to better themselves. This President and the democratic liberals in Congress are not representing WE THE PEOPLE, wake up before you are slammed for being stupid. My family and my friends are not racist and we are not neocons or liberals, we want to see our country remain free and continue to be prosperous. The trouble is that the covert left is taking us in a socialistic direction like Castro and Hugo Chavez did to their countries before they had chaos, poverty and continual rioting, like Greece is doing right now. I would hate to be in your shoes, because I am fighting for my freedom and if I win I will still have to pay my taxes so you can keep your free entitlements. If I lose you will have to go to work and earn your own, so I would say you are in a lose lose situation if you want to push your lame ideology off on me and my family. There are always unintended consequences for stupid ideology and idiotic actions. Does anyone think we should all band together to kick these damned politicians out of office and take our country back so we can enjoy a few years of peace or should be allow this President and Congress to perpetuate this frequent devisiveness that has us all on the brink of a revolution. Personally I think the liberals want this to happen now while they have their best chance to create an internal revolution and declare martial law so that we can transform completely into to the Obama/Pelosi/Reid game plan to become a Communist state with the messiah as our dictator. If they wait much longer, the elections will stifle any chance these congressional criminals will have to maintain power and control.By the way the last three administrations created this sorry situation we find ourselves in, but sooner or later Obama is going to have to let go of his famous last words about its always Bushes fault. The Congress has been controlled by the democrats since 2006 and could have easily shut down legislation on Bush and stopped funding his agenda and they could have also introduced and passed many of these bills they are ramming through right now. Bush was a loser and Obama is an even bigger loser because many of these problems and catastrophes have happened because of a lame duck Bush, pelosi’s non-action and Obama’s lack of experience to deal with major issues and unite the country behind him.

  • Bones

    You know the whole health care debate is very simple, but because of the secial interest on both sides it’s middle class people like myself that suffer.

    1 – you need tot reform
    2- keep the current system we have. Even though it’s flawed a lot of people like it.
    3- encourgage busnesses to cover employees or at least offer insurance through tax credits.
    4- create a low cost government run insurance program to cover people that can’t afford or can’t get covered by private insurance. Mind you, NOT FREE. They must pay for it. It would be very low cost but it must be paid for.
    5- Anyone that chooses to not buy insurance is ok. But healthcare providers also have the choice to deny treatment to anyone without coverage.
    How to pay for it I don’t know I’m not an accountant, but it would be a start.

    • Bones

      that should be tort reform not tot

      sorry

  • tom

    Obummer gives a lot of incentive to become a criminal.
    after all he is one.We need to stop electing millionaires
    and billionaires who wipe their boots on our faces.

  • Darrel

    Regarding needing jobs – our illustrious Congress and POTUS are about to punish their so-called “wealthy” (anyone making over $200,000 per year) with penalties and taxes to support all their pipe dreams. And who do you think that REALLY hits the hardest? Small Business – the largest employer in the country! Basic economics that DC does not understand or care about.

  • Betty

    I Found this today. For those of you that don’t quite understand, it basically says polls can be taken to show what you want them to show.

    Linda Evans
    Obama Approval Rating According to Gallup and Rasmussen After Healthcare Bill Passed
    March 26th, 2010

    Obama Approval Rating and Health Care Reform Vote and Facts. Obama’s approval rating is said to have declined during the health care debate. Americans and healthcare providers were petitioning the President, and general unrest abounded. There was plenty for Americans to be unhappy about.

    Now that the health care vote has taken place, Obama’s approval rating is of a concern to many. If his approval rating increases after the passage of the bill, then one can assume that people are generally happy with the recent health care bill.

    On the other hand, if the President’s approval rating declines it would showcase that there is still some uncertainty or dissatisfaction with the reform – or the President’s job in general.

    If you watch the news and hear about all the angry Americans out there protesting the reform, you would think that the President’s approval rating has declined. You could be surprised to note that the Gallup Poll actually notes an increase in the Presidential approval rating. According to Gallup, the President’s approval rating is 51% after the passage of the legislation.

    Perhaps there’s not as much resistance to the health care reform as we think. On the other hand, if you look at other calculations of the approval rating you may find that the satisfaction rate has actually decreased.

    The Rasmussen Polls indicate that 32% of Americans strongly approve of Obama’s performance, wheras 42% strongly disapprove, giving him an index of -10.

    So why the difference? Polls are all subjective and could differ based on methodology used. As with any rating, it can be manipulated. That’s not to say that Obama’s rating is inaccurate; however, one shouldn’t put too much faith in an arbitrary calculation, and the same would be true no matter which way the polls went.

    What matters? It matters what happens during the elections. If he’s re-elected, that means people are happy with him. If he’s not re-elected, that means that they aren’t satisfied with all he’s done during his first Presidential term.

    Source:

    Gallup.com

    Rasmussen Reports

    • http://charter howe

      Ms Betty go back and check your analysis, what the poll was stating is that after legislation in that time frame his approval rating momentarily spiked and then eventually dropped back down to the mid forties where on average it has been and continues to slowly go downward with every passing day of his inability to improve on the Gulf disaster and secure the borders to stop the illegal criminal invasion into Arizona and other border states. Where is the liberal media when it comes to reporting the mass intrusion of illegals carrying drugs at the behest of the drug cartels, the murders in Arizona and Texas and numerous kidnappings in the Phoenex area of Arizona. I spent 29 years in the military and if I ever thought my commander-in-thief would file a lawsuit against his own citizens in one of our sister states because he wants to hold the border security hostage until amnesty legislation is passed, I would have resigned and headed home to get ready for a communist takeover. This President is the most devisive and deceptive politician that I have ever witnessed in office and I am appalled at the number of people who still support him and his radical ideology. I hope folks start realizing its not about race its about trying to acquire more power and control through bigger govt and trashing the constitution. By the way lets use care with Constitutional changes, the founding fathers may know something we don’t.

  • Jo

    Betty, you are assuming that his reelection won’t be fixed. Do you really think that? As far as polls yesterday it was obvious from the many message boards that the leftie’s were busy working – maybe that’s the job O was talking about.

    • GregS

      Jo, I totally agree. The liberal news media is using all sorts of tricks to get the American public to swallow this awful healthcare bill. Besides using vague statements like “The political tides shifted with passage of the bill,” to make everything sound hunky-dory, they’re also using sleazy linkage tactics to associate ALL of those, who oppose the bill, with the crazies who committed acts of violence just after the bill was passed. As an example of this, ABC Channel 7 in Chicago (on the Ten O’clock News that night) was very quick to associate Sarah Palin with the violence, because of her “Don’t retreat; just reload” statement. They also associated the violence with her use of cross hairs on targeted congressional districts in one of her SarahPAC ads.

      How do we know that the Obama administration (and its left-winger supporters) didn’t put shills in various places to commit those acts of violence??? I wouldn’t be a bit surprised!

      • Betty

        Yeah, Just like the Bush Adminastration let 9/11 happen so that we would have a good excuse to go to war in Iraq.
        False flag opperations have been going on fo a long time.

        • GregS

          Betty, get real! An American president would have thousands of people killed in his own country, just to go to war? I don’t think so!

          • Betty

            What would say if Obama had been President then?

          • Betty

            This is few years old but still a good read.

            “A New Pearl Harbor”
            Two years ago a project set up by the men who now surround George W Bush said what America needed was “a new Pearl Harbor.” Its published aims have, alarmingly, come true.

            By John Pilger
            New Statesman
            December 16, 2002

            The threat posed by US terrorism to the security of nations and individuals was outlined in prophetic detail in a document written more than two years ago and disclosed only recently. What was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world’s resources, it said, was “some catastrophic and catalysing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”. The attacks of 11 September 2001 provided the “new Pearl Harbor”, described as “the opportunity of ages”. The extremists who have since exploited 11 September come from the era of Ronald Reagan, when far-right groups and “think-tanks” were established to avenge the American “defeat” in Vietnam. In the 1990s, there was an added agenda: to justify the denial of a “peace dividend” following the cold war. The Project for the New American Century was formed, along with the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute and others that have since merged the ambitions of the Reagan administration with those of the current Bush regime.

          • GregS

            In answer to your first question, as much as I dislike Obama, I would still never believe that he, as an American President, would be involved in something like that. However, after reading your second post, and doing a little research on the web, I guess anything (even with Bush) could be possible. Interesting reading!

  • http://Yahoomail John J.

    There is much for both sides of the argument to bicker about, as I am sure that they will, but the cold hard fact of the matter is what I have repeatedly stated; if we do not seek out, and vote for Congressional candidates who are dedicated to legislating according to the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers, THIS NOVEMBER; the demise of this country, as we know it, is not far off.
    The potential of the good old US of A has been constantly assailed since we became a country, but most viciously in the last 120 years, and it has kept us from reaching our true potential as a Nation.
    Repealing the 17th amendment would give the voice of the people the power that the Founding Fathers intended them to have. Going back on the Gold standard would be another shackle that needs to be thrown off.

  • s c

    A progressive who takes the time to READ and UNDERSTAND knows that the 17th Amendment is one of the cornerstones of POWER. Take away the 17th Amendment, and it would be like having a lung removed.
    Many conservatives do not appreciate the 17th Amendment’s role in suppressing the voice and will of the PEOPLE. Public education is partly to blame for this sad situation. This debacle didn’t arise through any ‘accident.’ It was planned, and the names of those ‘planners’ should be seen as traitors.
    The Constitution obligates us to recognize domestic and foreign enemies. The 17th Amendment is a cancer that must be removed. Anyone who wants to keep the 17th Amendment intact MUST be seen as a domestic enemy and dealt with accordingly.

  • Anthony

    The 17th Amendment is ILLEGAL in that it goes directly against the Constitution, period.

    You can add several others, as well – the most damaging is the 16th Amendment. And, on that note, I say SHOW ME THE LAW….

    Let’s repeal THe Federal Reserve Act while we’re at it, too!

  • http://robert4flowers.tabulas.com/ Kyoko Otsman

    Wow! This really is 1 of the very best blogs I’ve ever arrive across on this subject. Basically Amazing

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.