It was just over one year ago. March 15, 2009. Liberals and progressives were still crowing about the election of Barack Obama and a Democratic House and Senate. The conservative movement, many told us, was dead. Friends of mine who should have known better were speculating that the demographic shift in voting patterns would soon force Republicans to move in a more centrist direction. Republicans would need more than white votes in the South if they hoped to win any future national elections, some said. The Tea Party movement had not yet been fully born. And the Conservative Political Action Committee, CPAC, was holding one of its annual confabs at the Omni Shoreham hotel in the Washington, D.C. area.
John Tate, president of the Campaign for Liberty, came to the platform and introduced Dr. Ron Paul, his "friend" and the "honorary chairman" of his organization. Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas who was in 1988 the Libertarian Party's candidate for president, began lecturing the CPAC crowd on what it took to be a true conservative. Defend the constitution, he instructed, and oppose the Federal Reserve System. Live by the rule of law, he said, and if you don't like parts of the constitution, well you just need to amend it. In fact, he said, "I would like to remove two of them. The 16th and 17th" amendments.
The Sixteenth Amendment created the income tax, and opposition to the income tax is as American as apple pie. Proposing the removal of the Seventeenth Amendment is an acquired taste, however, shared by relatively few people. After all, that particular part of the constitution, ratified by the states in 1913, enabled voters to directly elect U.S. senators. Prior to its adoption, senators were elected by state legislatures to six-year terms in D.C.
Once the Seventeenth Amendment passed, the constitution became inherently more democratic. Removing it, per Ron Paul, has to be considered anti-democratic; on a par with, say, eliminating the Nineteenth Amendment, ratified in 1920, which was supposed to guarantee all women the right to vote. Or with ignoring the Fourteenth Amendment.
Now the views of Ron Paul would not be important if he was just one of 435 congressman, and a member of the minority party to boot. He could just be considered another crank to be ignored. After all, he once served as a contributing editor to the John Birch Society's monthly magazine, The New American. And Paul's crusade against the Federal Reserve has established him as a figure on the furthest edges of the far right.
Yet, it was Paul's bid for president in the Republican primaries that became the basis of the Campaign for Liberty organization, which has a much broader purview. And there are some who believe that Paul and his electioneering operation became a basis for the first stirrings of the Tea Party movement. Consider in this regard, what the American Free Press weekly tabloid opined in its March 1, 2010 issue: "The Tea Parties were actually born during the presidential campaign of Rep. Ron Paul of Texas in 2007 and 2008. For all intents and purposes, the Tea Parties and the Ron Paul revolution were one and the same."
The American Free Press should not be counted as one of the bastions of historical accuracy. It is the lineal descendant of The Spotlight tabloid, published by the now defunct Liberty Lobby organization. And Spotlight and Liberty Lobby and their founder Willis Carto were known for advancing the notion that Hitler's Holocaust was a hoax perpetrated by "the Jews."
It is true, nevertheless, that the Campaign for Liberty was the structure upon which many early Tea Party events hung their hat, particularly during the spring and summer of 2009. And Ron Paul's views carry more weight than those of ordinary backbench Republicans.
Now the Campaign for Liberty's "Statement of Principles" does not contain any mention of the Seventeenth Amendment. But its repeal is much discussed and advocated by the Ron Paul rank and file -- including those active in the Tea Parties. In these quarters, revocation of the seventeenth amendment is necessary to (re)establish their version of "states' rights" and the Tenth Amendment.
Invoking opposition to the federal government and supporting states rights has, of course, been central to Tea Parties protests since the beginning. Indeed, Tea Party candidate for Texas governor Debra Medina, who also serves on the Campaign for Liberty's board of directors, included "respect for the 10th amendment and Texas sovereignty" as one of her main platform planks. "We must use the tools of nullification and interposition," she argued, reiterating the pre-Civil War claims of John C. Calhoun.
Calhoun's contentious vision of state sovereignty and secession were settled by the Civil War and ever since the cry of states' rights has been part of the defense of slavery and Jim Crow. Its not too different this time around with Ron Paul and the Tea Parties.
And excellent reply to this column can be found at lewrockwell.com. Here is the link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo183.html.
In the Constitution, as originally conceived, the state legislatures had tremendous power that has been taken away. Their power to appoint senators was one. Their power to appoint electors to the Electoral College was another. The Founder's view was that, in a federal system, the individual states had powers that were broad and non-enumerated; the central government had only powers that were narrow and enumerated.
Unfortunately, the Constitution has failed. The Founders' worst fear--that of a central government with unlimited powers--has come true.
"Same prison, different cell block."
How snappy. In this case the "prison" would be the state of being beholden to some interest, and the "cell block" is the particular interest? Still beholden, but just to someone else you mean. That is the whole point - the Senate is *supposed* to be beholden to someone else. It is John Adams' idea that "power must be opposed to power, and interest to interest" - checks and balances. The Union is a compact between sovereign states, and those states are represented politically in the upper house; the lower house represents the public.. Having the Senate elected by the people makes it redundant. And yes we know that House members are generally too beholden to corporate interests; it doesn't really make much sense to argue that the Senate should *also* be beholden to those same corporate interests, in just the same fashion. It should serve as a safeguard, jealously protecting the rights and powers of the states from usurpation by the remote general government.
Anyway, that is the argument for repealing the 17th Amendment, and its purpose is in part to neuter corporate power over Washington and devolve power from a remote elite few and back to towns, counties and states, where it is closer to the people. If you oppose these goals, then oppose repeal.
Paul was one of a very few in congress that opposed the illegal war in Iraq.
He wants to pull our troops out of the 160 some countries that we occupy.
He feels churches which benefit from not paying taxes to take more responsibility in caring for their communities in the form of food and assistance for those unemployed and homeless.
He opposes the war and prohibition on drugs.
He feels the healthcare solution lies in patients only paying what they can afford. Meaning the rich pay more, making up for the not so rich not paying, This would mean eliminating health insurance all together.
The list goes on.
Maybe the author should have had the guts to call and interview Dr. Paul.
It is really too bad that the media jumped in and supported McCain. I would love to have seen a debate between Dr. Paul and Obama. I imagine things would have been a lot different. I voted for our current president because of dislike of McCain and the fact that he showed respect and decorum, not because I support much of what he is doing now.
This country gave a chance when it did not put Paul on the ticket.
I work in a factory producing tires. When someone goes to a retail store and buys a set of tires, he will pay the same price for those tires regardless of whether he is poor and puts those tires on an old junker, or whether he is A multi-millionaire and puts them on a Bentley. To ask everyone to pay their fair share, but at the same time ask the rich to pay more, even if it is the same percentage, seems to me to be preposterous.
But then, I am a Hard-core liberal in the truest meaning of the word, (for the maximization of liberty) and I am against forcing anyone to pay for something they do not want to by the threat of violence. Thus I am against the income tax entirely. It flies in the face of the 9th amendment, the right to privacy, to force individuals to have to disclose how much they earn to the federal government.
The John Birch society holds McCarthy as a hero and believes that “liberal” politicians and are part of a “communist” conspiracy known as “Insiders”. They opposed the Civil Rights movement and Civil Rights legislation (and still do), called Martin Luther King a radical socialist threat (and still do), praised apartheid and believe that Nelson Mandela was “a communist terrorist thug” and campaigned for segregationist Presidential candidate George Wallace.
What is most scary about the John Birch Society, is that it seems to be a breeding ground for Neo-Nazis. Several members of the intellectual wing of the White Nationalist Neo-Nazi movement come directly from the John Birch society.
One of the founders of the John Birch Society was Revilo P. Oliver, who went on to found the white nationalist Neo-Nazi organization, The National Alliance which named Hitler “the greatest man of our era.”
And communistic philosophy is alive and well in American politics. The JBS people were also factually correct about Soviet run infiltrators in the American political system. The decoded communications between these agents and their spymasters in Moscow are in the public domain (Venona).
Which leads me to say that I am against many aspects of the civil rights movement. Of course if something is funded by taxes, like the Montgomery bus system, then all citizens should have the equal right to ride, and where they can find a seat. But, then I think gov't run transit systems should be abolished, so its a moot issue.
But when it comes to anti-discrimination laws, its a joke, if a man owns a shop, he should be able to dictate who is allowed in the same as you and your home. and if you rent out a house, you should be able to rent to whomever you choose, period. This means that sometimes people will make "bad" choices, the same in the case of abortion, but it is the ability to make choices that makes us free.
Just a thought.
J
We now have a federal government that thinks it can force people to buy the products of its major corporate donors. States are coming in to protect us from that kind of abuse -- and they are saying "not in this state you can't." Whew.
I would have preferred that the federal government acted morally and within the bounds of the constitution -- as per its agreement with the people. Now we must resort to this...
And if it is a majority in each house, how is this a ridiculous generalization. If the majority of members in each house act so illegally, is it not a generalization at all but just a fact to say that the federal government is corrupt.
But then we are overlooking all the other members of the federal government outside of the legislative branch, i.e. the bureaucracy. I am confident I will raise no contention on this point.
Are you freaking serious?
What kind of stupid sauce are they serving in progressive circles? It must be a potent brew indeed.
but then why should we want to improve democracy? have you ever been mugged? you by 4 men with bats and chains? fear not and dont call the police, it is only a democratic process to determine whether or not you, or they, should get your money, the vote came back 4 to 1. you loose.
It is not democracy that we should be interested in, but in Liberty.
J
Does Zeskind bemoan the electoral college system that insulates the people from the Presidential election process as much as he cries about this proposal? He certainly didn't in this article.
Liberal; Being open minded and not bound to the observance of orthodox, traditional or established forms or ways. Liberals favor government action to promote equality; (The result would be the poor would have as much power as the rich to determine what kind of society they live in.
They differ from Libertarians by realizing that the individual cannot achieve freedom without power to check the powerful through government action.)
They tend to believe in Keynesian Economics. The Great Depression saw the birth of Keynesian Economics which advocates government intervention in economic affairs.
Conservatives favor government action to promote order. (The result would be the strong and powerful would buy control of the government to protect and promote their wealth and power from any restraint from the less powerful.)
Republicans and Libertarians support a laissez faire system and are against minimum wages, duties, and any other trade restrictions. Laissez faire is French for "leave alone." It was proven in the 19th century that it does not promote the common welfare of the people.
The laissez-faire period ended when large monopolies were broken up and government regulation of business became the norm.
Libertarians favor freedom and oppose government action to promote either equality or order. (The result would be anarchy and eventually slavery to the strong; this has been proven over and over.)
Libertarian: An open-minded person who believes that people should be free to the extent that they do no harm to others. They believe in constitutional government and that government must actually abide by its own rules. A libertarian believes in strong national defense, but not in aggression towards other nations. Libertarians believe that in a free market corporations will choose to act morally out of rational self -interest. One does not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Libertarians support humanitraian efforts that provide voluntary aid for their fellow man. Libertarians value agency over economic equality. Unlike progressives, liberals, or conservatives, libertarians recognize that the level of goodness within a society cannot be increased via coercion. They understand that coercion only spreads badness to other places and then adds to it.
Very big on using coercion in both economic and social spheres.
Liberal: A close-minded and hostile person who thinks he is open-minded because he favors a non-traditional viewpoint. Like progressives, liberals favor government coercion to get the things they want - at the expense of others whose rights they believe don't count -- especially if those others come from a more traditional demographic. Less inclined to drum circles but highly inclined to war, as long as it is "their" war -- but will almost ALWAYS forget about the wars they started and even attribute them to conservatives. Many liberals do not recognize that their liberal government gets in bed with big business and enacts policies that benefit these corporations and harm the little people. Liberals also think they are smarter than everyone else in an "I went to Harvard and you only went to Yale" -- even though a big voting bloc comes from the welfare
Conservative good; Libertarian better
Progressive bad; Liberal worse
codycap's terms were slanted, but yours are just plain ignorant.
On balance I don't support repeal of the 17th, but it's not a black & white libertarian position.
If and when Dr. Paul message is not abused, he'll be delighted to promote the same cause.
Freedom, Prosperity and Peace are what was intended by the People and for the People.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKZmIzEMUN8
1) States' rights arguments were used in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison then wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, outlining the rights of states to oppose unconstitutional federal action.
2) The Northern States de facto nullified the Embargo Act of 1807 because it caused a severe downturn to their economy.
3) The Northern States also threatened secession over the War of 1812.
4) The Nullification Crisis in 1832 was in response to a harsh tariff by the federal government that disproportionately harmed the Southern States' exports.
5) The Northern states were able to oppose fugitive slave laws via nullification and states rights. It was through states rights that many slaves who reached free states were able to be protected.
It is unfortunate that "states' rights" and nullification are now associated with slavery and Jim Crow, but that is due more to intellectual laziness and historical ignorance than anything else. I think that the idea that liberals and progressives oppose states rights and see it as a 'conservative' issue are going about it the wrong way. Supporting states rights would allow left-leaning states to enact policies they support (like marijuana decriminalization, gay marriage, etc...) without federal interference. It would make it so the DEA can't arrest sick people in California for using medical marijuana despite state law.
It's misleading to imply that states" rights and nullification are pro-slavery & Jim Crow ideas! The same concepts were used to PROTECT runaway slaves in the mid 1800s. Research "Joshua Glover", "Jerry Rescue" and "Personal Liberty laws" for instance - a few examples of citizens' counteracting federal laws that they knew were unjust.
I think that if tea partiers can truly influence the Republicans toward smaller government and liberty then we all benefit. Civil liberties then can grow and compromise can be made toward righting our sinking nation.
One thing is certain. We are going to have to spend less money. I would like to see this come out of the defense budget but there also needs to be entitlement cuts. We are going to have to ween this country off of the entitlement system. It will lead us to failure. Ron Paul speaks to great length about this problem. He advocates a Trillion dollar cut in defense immediately. How can you not support this guy?
And I mean direct actual harms, not the vague ones that the left talk about in the USA PATRIOT Act.
Just cause it's not happening yet doesn't mean it won't happen if the Federal is granted more and more power over our lives, only a fool would think otherwise.
I have not even began talking about taxes yet. The whole idea of stealing from one to give to another is insulting. Government must be funded, yes, but the current system of money creation and borrowing from future generations to fund wars and entitlements should upset everyone of us. This is not sustainable. Why can we not all see this. The invisible tax of inflation is the cruelest form of taxation because the poor suffer the most. We create a lot of our problems and the sad part is that it drives us further towards those same catalyst's.
My main argument is that the current path is just simply unsustainable. The gold standard may not be the answer but can you really argue that the current system is good? Is it OK that we can create our own money? This leads to many of our problems. I wish we would have been able to responsibility maintain the ability to create the worlds money but we failed. Now the consequences for this failure will be great. We have a genuine chance of seeing hyperinflation in this country and that is a very bad proposition. You can hang onto your social beliefs but please research monetary policy. I think that Paul's ideas in this area are the real benefit to our country and it is a shame that more debate on this does not reach the masses. I guess that is Ron Paul's main contribution and legacy.