Posted by roosevans on 04/01/10
Last updated 04/01/10

Originally, a Senator was elected by the legislature of a state, and was expected to represent the state government within the Federal government. This was expected to help keep the balance between Federal and state authority. Also it was believed that while an unqualified candidate might win a popular-vote majority through demagoguery or superficial qualities, whereas the legislature, which could deliberate on its choice, and whose members had been selected by their constituents and had experience in politics, would be safe from such folly. Finally, election by the legislature was expected to insulate Senators from the distraction of public campaigning for election or re-election, leaving them free to to concentrate on the great business of the Federal government. This last purpose was also served by the six-year term for Senators, compared to the two-year term for U.S. Representatives.

Election by legislatures generally occurred without major problems up to the mid-1850s. Reform efforts began as early as 1826, when direct election was first proposed. In the 1870s, citizens petitioned the House of Representatives for direct election. From 1893 to 1902, support for direct election increased considerably. Each year during that period, a constitutional amendment for direct election was proposed in Congress, but the Senate rejected it. In the mid-1890s, the Populist Party put direct election of Senators in its platform, but neither the Democrats nor the Republicans paid much notice at the time.

Direct election was also part of the Wisconsin Idea championed by Republican Senators Robert M. La Follette, Sr., a progressive, and George W. Norris, a reformer. In the early 1900s, Oregon pioneered direct election of Senators. Oregon tried various procedures until success in 1907, and was soon followed by Nebraska.

Popular support of Senatorial election reform grew rapidly at this time. In 1905, William Randolph Hearst acquired Cosmopolitan (then a general-interest magazine), and made it an advocate of direct election. In 1906, Cosmopolitan published "The Treason of the Senate", a series of scathing articles by "Muckraking" reporter David Graham Phillips, which described Senators as corrupt pawns of industrialists and financiers.

Increasingly, Senators were elected based on state referenda, similar to the means developed by Oregon. By 1912, as many as 29 states elected Senators either as nominees of party primaries, or in conjunction with a general election. These de facto directly elected Senators supported legislation to promote direct election, but to make direct election general, a constitutional amendment was required.

The Senate had consistently rejected the proposed amendment, and so direct election advocates acted through the states. Amendments to the Constitution are normally proposed by Congress, a two-thirds vote of both Houses being required. However, under Article V, two-thirds of the states may apply for the creation of a convention to proposed amendments and the Congress must then create one.

By 1910, almost two-thirds of the states had called for such a convention, which put pressure on the Congress to propose the amendment and eliminate the need for the convention.

On April 8, 1913, Connecticut became the 36th state (out of 48) to ratify, and the Seventeenth Amendment was adopted. 

Several advocates of federalism have called for the Seventeenth Amendment's repeal. For example, then-U.S. Senator Zell Miller of Georgia, shortly after announcing his intention to retire from the Senate, made this statement from the Senate floor:

Direct elections of Senators ... allowed Washington's special interests to call the shots, whether it is filling judicial vacancies, passing laws, or issuing regulations.

Libertarian author and economist Thomas DiLorenzo has characterized the Seventeenth Amendment as "one of the last nails to be pounded into the coffin of federalism in America."

The amendment has been blamed, together with the Sixteenth Amendment, for greatly expanding the authority of the United States Congressin the 20th century. Organizations have been created to support the amendment's complete repeal. (Read Full Article)

   It is obvious the original intent of the framers of the US Constitution was for US Senators to be above the excessive influence of campaign financiers and special interest lobbyists by not being popularly elected but elected by state legislatures. US Senators were to be directly connected to each state legislature. All those seeking public office are subject to bribes and influence by campaign financiers and special lobbies, which behooves having ethical men and women run for office. In my opinion, the 17th Amendment, which was instigated by Progressives, only made US Senators more beholden to campaign financiers and special interest lobbyists. Today it takes millions of dollars for a person to even run for a US Senate seat and after being elected, who is that Senator beholden to or who does that Senator belong to? Progressives always come up with solutions that seem good at first but in the long run always make things worse. The 17th Amendment should be repealed and state legislatures returned to it's Constitutional connection to Congress and the Federal government, Progressives be damned!

Posted by roosevans on 03/25/10

When California voters head to the polls in November, they will decide whether the state will make history again - this time by legalizing the recreational use of marijuana for adults.

The state was the first to legalize medicinal marijuana use, with voters passing it in 1996. Since then, 14 states have followed California's lead, even though marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

"This is a watershed moment in the decades-long struggle to end failed marijuana prohibition in this country," said Stephen Gutwillig, California director for the Drug Policy Alliance. "We really can't overstate the significance of Californians being the first to have the opportunity to end this public policy disaster."

The initiative would allow those 21 years and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana, enough to roll dozens of marijuana cigarettes. Residents also could grow their own crop of the plant in gardens measuring up to 25 square feet.

The proposal would ban users from ingesting marijuana in public or smoking it while minors are present. It also would make it illegal to possess the drug on school grounds or drive while under its influence.

Local governments would decide whether to permit and tax marijuana sales.

Proponents of the measure say legalizing marijuana could save the state $200 million a year by reducing public safety costs. At the same time, it could generate tax revenue for local governments.

Other opponents view marijuana as a "gateway drug" that, when used by young people, could lead them to try other, harder drugs. They worry that legalization would persuade more people to try it, worsening the nation's drug culture. (Read Full Article)

    If people in America have the right to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes, then people in America should have the right to smoke marijuana, as I see it, even though I don't smoke weed. The so called "war on drugs" is an exercise in futility. Criminalizing adults using marijuana for recreational or medical use is totally unnecessary, in my opinion. While we're at it, along with marijuana, America should legalize and tax the use of multi-purpose industrial hemp, despite the opposition of the logging and oil industries. Pot for recreation and revenue!

Posted by roosevans on 03/24/10

Banks and other private lenders are about to lose a $70 billion-a-year student loan business, part of a massive overhaul ofcollege assistance programs that has received an unexpected boost from President Barack Obama's health care success.

Industry lobbyists have watched helplessly as Democrats and the Obama administration appear on the verge of shifting student lending from private banks to the federal government.

Under the measure, private banks would no longer get fees from the government for acting as middlemen in loans to low- and middle-income students. With those savings, the government would increase Pell Grants to needy students and make it easier for workers burdened by student loans to pay them back.

The bill would mean the loss of billions of dollars in business to student lending giant Sallie Mae as well as large financial institutions such as Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America.

Private lenders have conducted an all-out lobbying effort against the bill, arguing it would cost thousands of jobs and unnecessarily put the program in the hands of the government.

"The industry plays a role in maintaining competition and choice," said Scott Talbott, the chief lobbyist for theFinancial Services Roundtable, an industry group. "If the government is the only lender, there is no choice."

Under the college lending program, financial institutions provide college loans at low interest rates, and the government guarantees the loans in the event of default and subsidizes private lenders when necessary to keep rates low.

"This is a case of corporate welfare, a giveaway to bankers and to Sallie Mae," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.

The bill would see $61 billion in savings over 10 years from the switch to direct government lending. It would pay for Pell Grants and provide more than $4 billion to community colleges and historically black colleges. It also would direct about $19 billion to reducing the deficit and offsetting expenses in the health care legislation.

In addition, beginning in 2014, college graduates would be allowed to devote no more than 10 percent of their monthly income to repay their student loans. The current cap is 15 percent. (Read Full Article)

   In business, the middleman always drives costs up. In housing the federal government has "privatized the profits and socialized the losses" through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for decades as well as Sallie Mae and other private banks in education. Now the government has eliminated the middle man in financing college education. There was another alternative, that of the federal government getting out of financing college education period. That would save a lot more money. The issue then is not money but control. In my opinion, the federal government statists want control of American youth at the expense of the loss of thousands of jobs in the banking industry and student choice in financing their college education. Many times what seems good in the short term is bad in the long term. Education: another government takeover.

Posted by roosevans on 03/22/10
Last updated 03/22/10

This remote Pacific island is home to U.S. citizens who are fervent supporters of the military, as measured by their record of fighting and dying in America's recent wars.

But they are angry about a major military buildup here, which the government of Guam and many residents say is being grossly underfunded. They fear that the construction of a new Marine Corps base will overwhelm the island's already inadequate water and sewage systems, as well as its port, power grid, hospital, highways and social services.

The Environmental Protection Agency said last month that the military buildup, as described in Pentagon documents, could trigger island-wide water shortages that would "fall disproportionately on a low income medically underserved population." It also said the buildup would overload sewage-treatment systems in a way that "may result in significant adverse public health impacts."

A report by the Government Accountability Office last year came to similar conclusions, saying the buildup would "substantially" tax Guam's infrastructure.

Led by the Marines, American forces liberated the island in 1944, and people here say they still feel a debt to the United States. To repay it, they proudly call their island the "tip of the spear" for projecting U.S. military power in the Far East. Guam already has Navy and Air Force bases that can handle many of the most potent weapons in the U.S. arsenal. Nuclear-powered attack submarines, F-22 fighter jets and B-2 stealth bombers frequent the island, which will soon be protected by its own anti-missile system.

"We don't mind being the tip of spear, but we don't want to get the shaft," said Simon A. Sanchez II, chairman of Guam's commission on public utilities. "We have been asking for help from Day One, but we have not got any meaningful appropriations.

"Guam was not consulted in the decision to move 8,000 Marines -- about half those based in Okinawa -- to the island. The $13 billion move was negotiated in 2006 between the Bush administration and a previous Japanese government, with Japan paying about $6 billion of the non-civilian cost, as a way of reducing the large U.S. military footprint in Okinawa.

But in the past year, with new leadership in Tokyo, the Japanese role in the move has become complicated. Anti-military sentiment is growing in Okinawa; Japan's new leaders have yet to decide if they will allow a Marine air station to remain anywhere in the country. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has expressed irritation with Japan, even as the Pentagon presses ahead with its plan to shift the Marines to Guam by 2014.

The federal government's push to further militarize this island -- combined with its heel-dragging in paying for the impact on civilians -- has led many Guam residents to doubt the value of their relationship with the United States.

Posted by roosevans on 03/19/10

President Barack Obama promised to make overhauling the immigration system a top priority in his first year as president. He's now in Year Two, and the odds that he'll get to sign a bill before the November midterm elections appear long.

Grass-roots activists frustrated by the wait for a new system are organizing a rally Sunday on the National Mall by what they hope will be thousands of people from across the country voicing their displeasure at the pace of action.

In meetings last week, Obama sought to assure activists and the two senators who are drafting a bill of his "unwavering" commitment to comprehensive immigration overhaul. But the White House has also signaled that the issue is not among the legislative priorities it wants completed before the entire House and one-third of the Senate face voters in November.

Asked about the priorities after health care, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said financial regulation, energy legislation and watering down a recent Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance are among the "big priorities" - not to mention jobs and the economy.

How to handle the estimated 12 million people in the U.S. illegally is a volatile issue, with some interests opposing any attempt to help them become citizens and others insisting on stronger border controls first. Lawmakers failed to agree in 2006 and 2007 when they last tried to overhaul the immigration system, and the political climate this year is tougher than it was back then.

Obama has put Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in charge of overseeing the immigration overhaul effort, and she has sought support for it in dozens of meetings with lawmakers from both parties since the beginning of last year.

Her department also has taken steps to improve the existing system by focusing deportations of undocumented immigrants on those with criminal histories and by going after employers who knowingly hire undocumented immigrants, rather than the workers themselves.

Asked about immigration overhaul at a news conference during a visit to Mexico, Obama said changing the system would have to wait until 2010 while he focused on other priorities, such as overhauling the health care and financial regulatory systems. (Read Full Article)

   The Obama White House has obviously put immigration reform on the back burners, for now at least. It has always been my opinion the root cause of illegal immigration is the willingness of American businesses and families to hire them. It is human nature for people to seek a better life, even if it means immigrating illegally. There needs to be very stiff and enforced fines on businesses and families that hire illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants who are gainfully employed should be allowed to stay with their families, as they contribute to the US economy. Unemployed illegal immigrants should not be granted welfare, medicaid or unemployment benefits and illegal immigrants committing felonies should be deported. Though children of illegal immigrants are American citizens, if their parents are deported the children must be deported with them unless adopted by an American citizen. The consequences of immigration reform will include broken families but that is the risk illegal immigrants took in coming to America in that status.

Open borders for the legal immigration that benefits any nation. Physical walls will not keep illegal immigrants out but rather law abiding businesses and families, as I see it. Real immigration reform is obeying the law.