Rick Perry shows us the real face of States' Rights

Rick Perry wants to repeal the 17th Amendment. That's the one that provides for the direct election of US Senators. He wants to go back to having Senators appointed by the state governments.

What can we deduce from this?

Rick Perry is bats*** crazy.

But that's obvious. The more important question is what does this tell us about conservatism and the States' rights movement?

Why would a movement that claims to want smaller, less intrusive government want to make the government less democratic and less accountable to the people? What would be the practical consequences of this be? The result would be to take power away from the people and give it to the state governments. Logically that implies that the motivation for it is coming from those who would benefit from that, that is the people who control the state governments.

To me, this seems like final confirmation of what I've suspected for some time States' Rights is really all about. It is, quite simply, a power grab by the social and political elites who have a stranglehold on power at the state level in certain places. States Rights is not about limiting government or democracy or keeping power closer to the people. It is about removing constraints on the power of the state governments. It is about elites trying to squelch the voice of the people and seize power for themselves. If you're worried about government overreach and oppressive policies, you shouldn't be looking at Washington, you should be looking at your state capitol.

This is just like what happened during the health care debate. You remember how at one point there was a proposed compromise that would have a public option, but would allow the states to opt out of it? Why in blazes should my state government be able to tell me that I can't participate in a federal program that my tax dollars help support?? Now that is intrusive government.

Our democracy is based on the idea of checks and balances, that those in power should always be accountable to someone. The States' Rights movement wants to make the state governments accountable to no one but themselves.

 

What is the point of direct election to both houses of the legislature?

The founders had a really good reason for making one house elected by popular vote while the other house was appointed by each state's legislature.

One house was supposed to represent the people, hence the popular vote factor. The other house was supposed to be immune from fads and popular opinion and able to make a more reasoned decision based on the needs of the state. The Senate was a check on democracy and a way for states to protect their rights from encroachment from the federal government.

 

Rick Perry is a Dominionist.

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/206998-what-heck-dominionist.html#post4446215

 

The 17th amendment should be repealed. As should the 16th.

 

Rick Perry is a globalist who does not believe in democracy, proven by his speech about open borders, bi-national healthcare, and his lies about essentially everything he has claimed to support in the past year.

Who elects the UN representatives? Ask the Europeans who the heck voted for von Rompey. You need more Nigel Farage speeches in your life if you support democracy, as you obviously have missed the fact that Rick Perry is not religious, not a "right" winger, and is just another corrupt liar in a snake suit.

 

Rick Perry is either a believer or an opportunist..

The most clear-cut example of NAR dominionism is the so-called “Seven Mountains Mandate”, which holds that dominionist Christians should control the whole world by infiltrating and dominating the “Seven Mountains” of culture: (1) Business; (2) Government; (3) Media; (4) Arts and Entertainment; (5) Education; (6) Family; and (7) Religion.

 

At best he's a New Testament litteralist. That's as crazy as Mormon teachings, only Mormon's know not to talk the crazy talk out in public.

Bottom line, this guy is not to be allowed out of Texas. Let him stay there and kill possibly innocent prisoners, without a care in his black heart.

 

Then so were the Framers. Right?

Indeed, just think how much more democratic it would be to abolish the Senate. Right?

 

I love this, a series of posts attacking the guy without any substantive arguments against his opinion.

Why did the original constitution give each state's legislature the authority to appoint senators, rather than make it a popular vote?

Why was the 17th amendment conceived and passed?

 

Its called the NEW APOSTOLIC REFORMATION.

 

You have some good points there, Margot. I was sure that I read that Perry "found religion" later in life and that usually points to political pandering. But it would also make sense if he is a....dominionist.

 

First off, i don't care for Perry but i'd vote for anybody other than Obamao. I don't have a problem with the repeal of the seventeenth amendment. Congress worked that to their benefit. Time to take it away from them and give it BACK to the states. They Usurped the power that was not given to them.

AND this country would be better if STates rights was more prevalent. States Rights as opposed to STATISM which is a too strong overpowering Central Government.

 

lol do all these people in this thread really not know why the 17th amendment was passed?

 

They call themselves the New Apostolic Reformation.. and we don't need that.

Mainstream Christians and secular people should be very wary of this stuff.

 

Seems they're doing fantastic feats of reformation, anything to get away from that little R near their names. They really are running from their past, no matter how recent.
Fun watching the rats jump ship or dive into the bilges, eh?

 

I bet most of them didn't even know what the 17th amendment is, much less why it was passed.

 

Tell them..............

 

ahh those evil Mormons..out there..
Now the true reason not to consider ROMNEY..
mm.

 

So does my rooster, but no one talks about him.
If you talk enough about a rooster, he will become a celebrity.

 

There is nothing more Un-American than taking direct elections away from the people. But then again no one ever accused the **********s as being "american".

 

Is it un-American to take the states place at the federal table away from them?

 

The two party system continues its attack on individual rights and power of the people.
We need a real third party guy.

 

The state has no place in appointing senators. That is the CONSTITUTIONAL right of every american. And rightfully so. Anyone who advocates taking senate elections away is an authoritarian. That is undeniable fact.

 

Anyone that supports a central government is an authoritarian.

That's an undeniable fact.

States appointing US senators limits central power and places that power in the hands of the states.

 

True, it is a constitutional right and has been since 1913. For more than 100 years this was not the case.

The original constitution stated:

The senate was created to act as a meeting of ambassadors from sovereign states to ensure the needs of those states were taken care of. While the house of representatives were meant to represent the common man, the senate was to represent those in power in a state - its wealthy or educated, the elites.

The founders knew that the republics that survived the longest tended to have such separate representation to balance out the whims of the people and to prevent the tyranny of democracy. One founder specifically said that the reason for the senate was to "cool" legislation - to ensure nothing passed too quickly just because people were upset.

Senators were appointed to a six year term to ensure that they didn't fear for the whims and opinions of the people and would be likely to make a more reasoned judgement.

Unfortunately the Senate's rules caused problems with the system. They gave a great deal of importance to seniority. The longest standing senators got the best committee appointments and thus the most influence. States would rarely replace senators no matter how bad the senator performed because the state would be giving up any influence they might have and would have to wait decades to get back any position in the senate.

The senate had no reason to protect their state because they knew that no matter how they acted, their position was secure. They lost motivate and often acted on their own.

The 17th amendment was passed in hopes that it would reduce the length of terms that senators would serve and encourage senators to consider their constituency again. Unfortunately it also had the effect of eliminating the representation of the states at congress and made the senators subject to the same whims as the house.