Its surprising how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit
Watch and see what you think!
It's bad enough to think of the United Nations and it's global socialist agenda at the expense of American jobs, prosperity, and unalienable rights, but to think that the Article V would change any of that is idiotic at best. The underlying motivations is like a crime scene investigation. What is the real motive to pull off this heist? It is to pull at the heart strings of our Liberty and Freedom for concessions to the ruling class of elitists! It is to make America into the feudal society like that which ruled Europe in the middle ages by an enslavement and the perpetuation of indentured servant status of the population. Pull back the Curtain of Oz, and refrain to listen the snakes from The Tree Of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Since joining AFA, I think this is the most complex discussion I have seen with a very large number of viewpoints. I find it quite confusing. One thing I couldn't find was a REASON for deleting the 17th Amendment. Some help on this?
Btw, one of the best things about this discussion group is that a highly varied subject, such as this one is, does not produce individuals excoriating each other. I find it amazing!
In response to why to repeal the 17th amendment, our government is designed around a balance of power, and representation for all involved. Prior to the 17th, the states had representation in congress, for the senate was selected by state legislatures. The people of course, were represented by the House. Afterwards, the states lost their access and representation in congress and the people were represented by BOTH the house and the senate - and representation of the states was eliminated.
I doubt that No Child Left Behind or Common Core would have ever passed had senators been responsible to the states. We likely would never have had a national 55 mph speed limit. Additionally, under the present structure, the states get stuck with new restrictions that they have zero input about, and almost as often, the cost to finance them. This sort of nonsense would not have gotten past a senate who was responsible to the states.
Our constitution was ratified by the states. They had a voice. Now, their voice has been considerably restricted by this amendment. It has proven the wrong thing to do. Should it be repealed, it would not hamstring the representation of the people (they STILL elect state legislatures after all) and it would eliminate overreach of the federal government in many ways because congress would no longer get to ignore the states.
There are several FB groups out there about repealing the 17th amendment. Go follow them for a bit, and they will whine about the problem thereby answering the question as to why we need to repeal it.
BUT, I only mentioned the 17th in the first place to demonstrate that when anyone is running for office, the need to represent their constituency, not make a bunch of hair brained promised that they actually no intention of keeping. We need to be holding their feet to the fire, and demanding that they represent their voters. Whether they think something will pass or not is NOT the issue, it is whether they will support what their constituency want them to do. When I speak with MY representation after they have made me a promise about why they didn't follow through with one of their promises to me with the comment that ...oh, that idea would never have gotten off the ground... it makes me livid. Their job is to represent me. Not decide that my idea is hocus-pocus. By them arbitrarily deciding to override my concerns, they are NOT representing me, not it any way. What this sort of lack of representation actually does is not expose the positions of those in congress, for they never have to express their opinion, especially when they are intentionally ignoring the will of the people.
Again, I will get off my soap box for a bit....
Not so amazing, Eric. We expressly forbid name calling and all ugly, uncivil discourse here. You can get that on many other sites. We like to think we attract intelligent people who can formulate their opinion intelligently. They never disappoint. And thanks to all who follow our rules.
shouldn't use it because it's too dangerous. The probability of making only the changes like is zero
Some things that should be done. In my not so humble opinion:
We need to repeal the 17th amendment.
In order to do so, EVERY TIME anyone runs for congress and EVERY time they speak in a public setting, we need to be DEMANDING that they sponsor a bill to repeal the 17th. I mean, every time! They need to understand that we, as their voters, want this done. and that we WILL NOT put up with lip service. Saying that something is a good idea, and actually sponsoring a bill when they get there is entirely two different things! The first is absolutely meaningless, while the second at least has a chance for the public to understand who is, and who isn't, willing to support the idea under consideration.
The 17th is just one idea (a good one), but when we want represented, we need to overcome the self interest of our elected leaders, as well as the lobbyists who bribe them with all sorts of things.
We, the unrepresented voter, needs to approach OUR issues in this manner. We need to behave as if we expect these people to actually represent us, NOT pacify us by lying to our face, and then when they get there, do their thing, instead of ours.
Another issue I have is passing bills that have no sunset provision in them. Every bill needs to have provisions to fund the cost of the bill as well. Absolutely every one! To pass bills without both, is just flat out irresponsible. ANY legislator at any level of government that does this should NEVER be re elected. Ever! How many trillion are we really in debt? This is exactly why!
We cannot control these "representatives" unless we express ourselves to them IN PUBLIC, at every opportunity. In that they ONLY work in congress about 100 days a year, they should be home where we can reach them. We need to be doing so at every opportunity.
The third and last, yes, I promise to get off my soap box for a time, is lobbying. Hiring a lobbyist should be against the law, at least in my opinion. I submit that each and every one of us should be able to state our case to our legislators. This should be, and absolutely is not, an equal opportunity. The owner of a business should have the very same right to express themselves to the elected official. EXACTLY the same right. NO different. When a business owner can afford to buy a box at the super bowl for legislators, because they can charge it off to the business, that is patently unfair to us, the unwashed. When a corporation can "sponsor" a group of legislators to go to (name a resort) such as ALEC routinely does, it is patently unfair.
ALEC is an organization that takes "our" legislators, even state ones, to wherever, say the Caribbean or to Disney World, or some other place that we could not even consider affording in a lifetime, and wining and dining them for a week; then, while they are there, "suggestions" are made about what bills they would like to see passed. If you do not know about ALEC, do a search for your state's own ALEC members, The result will absolutely shock you. Again, IM(not so)HO, not a single one of these ALEC members can honestly represent their constituency and ALEC at the same time. (FWIW, there are about 6-8 of these lobbyist groups like ALEC out there. EVERY campaigner needs called out and pinned down as to whom they actually represent. IF they are an ALEC member, they should never, ever, be elected. Just saying....
Okay, off the soap box for a while....