Dean Erwin: 17th Amendment at odds with original intent of U.S. Constitution

[WifeOHunkyJohn 2]

Dean Erwin: 17th Amendment at odds with original intent of U.S. Constitution

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ... ." This is a part of the oath of office that the president and members of Congress take before assuming their elected office. I have to wonder, after seeing their "attempts" to seal our borders, and protect the American public from an invasion across our border with Mexico, what part of that oath they don't understand.

Recently, the matter of revising our immigration laws was a matter of much debate in the Senate, and although the president was pushing to get the Immigration Reform (amnesty) bill passed, it failed. It failed because the citizens of this great land said in effect, "enough is enough, just enforce the laws that are in existence and build the fence that has been authorized, but put a stop to the illegal immigration."

I wonder how many of those senators and the general public for that matter are aware that Article One, Section 3 of the Constitution directed that two senators from each state would be selected by the individual state legislatures to serve in Washington for a period of six years. In essence, the senators from any given state were that state's representatives in Congress.

The Constitution states that the second half of Congress, the House of Representatives, would be elected by popular vote for a two-year-term, by the people from their district, within their state. On April 8, 1913, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. This took away the right of the states to be represented by their own legislative elected senatorial representatives and therefore, it put the election of the senators into the public sector. In other words, they would be elected by popular vote, thus denying the states representation in Congress.

"So what?" you might say. Well, the answer if fairly simple. Moving the Senate from a state-represented body of our government to a popular vote system, it turned the outcome of the elections over to special interest groups, lobbyists and people with lots of money. I can't begin to imagine how much influence many people and organizations have in our Senate, simply by putting a senator in office for six long years. That is why when you look at the illegal immigration issue and the lack of security on our nation's borders, you have to wonder just why there would even be a need for the Senate to debate the issue. Why not correct the problem by enforcing laws already in place, unless there is a lot of outside influence being used? It makes one wonder where the real pressure to pass this bill is coming from, and why.

Fortunately, in the case of the Immigration Reform Bill the people spoke and the Senate listened. However, the Senate still did nothing to improve the lack of security on the nation's borders. Under the original version of the Constitution, for the lack of action, senators could be removed and replaced by the legislators within their home states, wouldn't that be great! Why aren't they acting now, since they have no fear of being removed from office; simply because they plan to wait until the next election in 2008 is over, and then, if re-elected, and most will be, they will have another two to six years in office to push through an amnesty program, hoping that by 2010 we will have forgotten what they did. With a two- to six-year safety net, they will be able to satisfy the people who are responsible for putting them in office.

The 17th Amendment can be repealed without the consent of Congress, but it would require a two-thirds vote in two-thirds of the states to do it, but it can be done. I find it interesting that William Randolph Hearst, a renowned journalist in his day, apparently used his newspapers to influence the passage of the

17th Amendment. Today the "media" still molds, or tries to influence it to accentuate their point of view, just as Hearst might have done to gain the passage of the 17th Amendment.

The passing of the 17th Amendment really created a problem with the original intent of the Constitution. It did so by creating an imbalance in the Tripartite system of government that had established us as a republic rather than a democracy, and now, that needs to be changed.

An interesting point to consider about our Congress is that after four years of a steady drumbeat of rhetoric berating George Bush, calling our soldiers criminals and murders, and telling us that the war against terrorism is lost, 38 percent of the Americans still believe in what we are doing. However, after less than a year of operation, only 14 percent approve of our Congress' dealings, and yet Congress and the media are always telling us what a great, loyal dedicated bunch they are. Time to restore the original Constitution.

Dean Erwin lives in Shreveport.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Illegal immigrants are our enemies? That's a stretch.

[Jasman0717 9]

I'm speachless....or representiveless

[lucyrich 20]

Well Duuhh! Of course the amendment is at odds with the original intent of the constitution! Every single one of the Amendments changed the original constitution. That's what amendments are supposed to do. Amendments pass only when there is enough of a consensus that the constitution isn't working well as-is, and needs to be changed. The writers of the constitution knew that they wouldn't get it perfectly right for all time, so they put in the amendment process so that future generations could rectify things as needed to meet future needs.

As to whether the voters or the legislators are more subject to the whims of "special interest groups, lobbyists and people with lots of money", I'd say I trust the voters much more than the legislators, though of course both groups can sometimes be manipulated.

[mawilson 2,133]

"So what?" you might say. Well, the answer if fairly simple. Moving the Senate from a state-represented body of our government to a popular vote system, it turned the outcome of the elections over to special interest groups, lobbyists and people with lots of money.

Huh? Why would you trust state legislature to select their senators as opposed to the people?

Doesn't make any sense.