It's not the abuse of power, it's the power to abuse." (alas, I can't recall who said that).I wish they'd left their name...but I think this is right. When the 17th Amendment passed, the balance of power began to tilt heavily to the Federal government at the expense of the states. Because prior to the passage of the amendment, US Senators were more answerable to the various state legislatures, and thus didn't begin to amass huge amounts of wealth in order to get reelected. If they didn't please the legislature of the state they were from...the legislators didn't send them back to the Senate.
The problem is that power is accumulating in Washington D.C. Leaving that power there and implementing term limits won't change the problem, it will merely change the names of the people involved more frequently.
Power didn't start accumulating in Washington D.C. until the 17th amendment was ratified (this allows the people to vote for their US Senators).
What we need is for this amendment to be repealed, along with the nullification of all laws and Supreme Court rulings enacted since the 17th amendment was ratified (if we leave the laws and rulings in place, we would effectively freeze the problem in place).
Prior to the 17th amendment, Senators were beholden to their State legislators for their positions. State legislatures don't like having their power grabbed by the federal government, so when a power grab was attempted by the Congress, the Senators would stop it.
The founders very carefully created a government structure that ensured that power would be diffuse, and spread mainly to the people. The 17th amendment broke this careful construct, and is what has brought us to were we are today. Any measure that doesn't restore the mechanism that kept power diffuse won't solve the problem.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
From the comments in a previous post...came this:"