The 16th and 17th Amendments Led to Expanding the Tyranny of the Federal Government

[justaschmuck9]

The 16th and 17th Amendments Led to Expanding the Tyranny of the Federal Government​

What's Wrong with the 17th Amendment?


(Note: Any parts of the following that are not in quotes or are surrounded by brackets are my words)


From Andrew Napolitano’s book Lies the Government Told you


P. 62

First Napolitano calls Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson “pernicious little tyrants” for “promoting and enacting” these 2 Amendments: the 16th (which gave us the income tax) and the 17th (that said Senators were to be elected “by the people” rather than by legislatures [even though legislators were already elected by the people).

I’m addressing the topic of the 17th Amendment first (approved on May 12, 1912, ratified in 1913) which Napolitano calls “a mortal blow to the concept of federalism [as opposed to centralized-in-DC power]."

He says that the 17th prevents state legislatures from having any influence in the federal government. “Sure, the amendment ensures that all members of congress are elected by the people, but the people of an entire state are unable to affect the actions of their US Senators; they can only vote them out of office after their lengthy, six-year terms. Furthermore, the people of every State are not trained to influence federal government policy and would not know what to do even if given the opportunity to communicate with their senators. We live in a representative democracy, not a [pure] democracy.”

Our Constitution originally provided that state legislatures control their US Senators, but the 17th "took that out of their hands, rendering the States defenseless against federal government abuses. It is no coincidence that the size of the federal government has grown exponentially since 1913 and US Senators have been controlled by special interests often exercising their influence from outside the States that the senators represent.”

We can “protect ourselves against corrupt state legislatures through term limits and campaign disclosure statements" [something we always could do, so there was no reason for a 17th Amendment]. There used to be deadlocks on Senators being appointed by legislatures but as Napolitano points out, the governor of a State could (and presumably still can) appoint a US Senator if the State’s legislature is deadlocked and does not elect a senator within 30 days.

Napolitano makes the point that an Amendment can be unconstitutional even if lawfully adopted if it violates the US Constitution as the 17th does. He calls the enactment of the 17th “more tyranny of the majority”…[and it] undermines the States’ check on federal corruption of states’ rights.” He says that these 2 Amendments have “contributed more to 1984-style Big Government than any other.. [and that]

If anyone tells you that this Amendment enfranchises voters, tell that person that the Amendment disenfranchises the States.”

 

[pknopp]

The 16th and 17th Amendments Led to Expanding the Tyranny of the Federal Government​

What's Wrong with the 17th Amendment?


(Note: Any parts of the following that are not in quotes or are surrounded by brackets are my words)


From Andrew Napolitano’s book Lies the Government Told you


P. 62

First Napolitano calls Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson “pernicious little tyrants” for “promoting and enacting” these 2 Amendments: the 16th (which gave us the income tax)

This kind of stuff bugs me. It did not give us the income tax. Lincoln had previously enacted an income tax to pay for the Civil War.

What it did was change the apportionate portions of the Constitution. Previously an income tax had to be proportionate. That is, if Virginia was 8% of the population, no more than 8% of the income tax could be collected from there.

 

[justaschmuck9]

This kind of stuff bugs me. It did not give us the income tax. Lincoln had previously enacted an income tax to pay for the Civil War.

What it did was change the apportionate portions of the Constitution. Previously an income tax had to be proportionate. That is, if Virginia was 8% of the population, no more than 8% of the income tax could be collected from there.

I am not talking about the 16th at this time. If you had read OP you would have known that.. or maybe you are deliberately trying to change the topic??

didn't work

 

[norwegen]

The federal government has taxed incomes before after certain wars, such as the Civil War. Congress repealed all those acts, though. They were just temporary, and for good reason. They were a burden.

No wonder Amendment 16 is still so controversial. And Amendment 17, too.

The parochial concerns of the people once reserved for the House are now concerns for the state? How idiotic is that.

 

[justaschmuck9]

The federal government has taxed incomes before after certain wars, such as the Civil War. Congress repealed all those acts, though. They were just temporary, and for good reason. They were a burden.

No wonder Amendment 16 is still so controversial. And Amendment 17, too.

The parochial concerns of the people once reserved for the House are now concerns for the state? How idiotic is that.

I don't at all u/stand your last sentence here!

 

[pknopp]

I am not talking about the 16th at this time. If you had read OP you would have known that.. or maybe you are deliberately trying to change the topic??

didn't work

I quoted your article.

 

[justaschmuck9]

I quoted your article.

Repeat:

I am not talking about the 16th at this time. If you had read OP you would have known that.. or maybe you are deliberately trying to change the topic??

 

[justaschmuck9]

The federal government has taxed incomes before after certain wars, such as the Civil War. Congress repealed all those acts, though. They were just temporary, and for good reason. They were a burden.

No wonder Amendment 16 is still so controversial. And Amendment 17, too.

The parochial concerns of the people once reserved for the House are now concerns for the state? How idiotic is that.

if Congress repealed those tax acts that were supposed to be war-era only, then why the 16th? they just never got around to axing it?

 

[pknopp]

Repeat:

I am not talking about the 16th at this time. If you had read OP you would have known that.. or maybe you are deliberately trying to change the topic??

If you don't want me to comment on the link you posted, don't post it.

 

[justaschmuck9]

If you don't want me to comment on the link you posted, don't post it.

my guess is you dont want to comment on the 17th bc you know little about it or do not u/stand it?

I had a hard time getting it myself, at first... why it would be (is) a bad thing to have the people directly vote for Senators.

But I began to get it as I read Napolitano, which I recommend everyone do

 

[pknopp]

my guess is you dont want to comment on the 17th bc you know little about it or do not u/stand it?

I had a hard time getting it myself, at first... why it would be (is) a bad thing to have the people directly vote for Senators.

But I began to get it as I read Napolitano, which I recommend everyone do

Napolitano was wrong about the 16th so why should I think he got the 17th right?

 

[pknopp]

Let's discuss this.

“Sure, the amendment ensures that all members of congress are elected by the people, but the people of an entire state are unable to affect the actions of their US Senators; they can only vote them out of office after their lengthy, six-year terms.

Voting them out does affect the actions of a Senator. The problem is people do not do that. It's not anyone's fault other than the people's. Winning a Senate seat is the next thing to a lifetime appointment.

I think the argument here is that people want to be able to displace other people's Senators.

 

[justaschmuck9]

Napolitano was wrong about the 16th so why should I think he got the 17th right?

how is he wrong about the 16th?

what? you want an income tax? You must like all those other taxes as well...federal, state... city.. everything has to have 5 different taxes attached to it.. I tend to think we should only tax luxury items..

 

[justaschmuck9]

Let's discuss this.

“Sure, the amendment ensures that all members of congress are elected by the people, but the people of an entire state are unable to affect the actions of their US Senators; they can only vote them out of office after their lengthy, six-year terms.

Voting them out does affect the actions of a Senator. The problem is people do not do that. It's not anyone's fault other than the people's. Winning a Senate seat is the next thing to a lifetime appointment.

I think the argument here is that people want to be able to displace other people's Senators.

well, yeh, they do want to displace other peole's senators and why not? Why wouldn't someone in TX want Cheney in WY replaced? for that matter, why wouldn't people in any state want that kind of replacement? (yeh, i know, she was in the House... thank God she isn't anymore.. )

anyhow, since they have 6 years and sometimes, as u say a lifetime appointment (we need term limits, to be sure), all the more reason for already-elected legislatures to choose them..

 

[pknopp]

how is he wrong about the 16th?

Did you not read my first reply? I stated how he was wrong.

what? you want an income tax? You must like all those other taxes as well...federal, state... city.. everything has to have 5 different taxes attached to it.. I tend to think we should only tax luxury items..

Things do have to be paid for. In todays age we can't finance a standing arming on alcohol taxes and selling off government lands.

As I noted in my first reply which I guess you didn't read, Lincoln had to enact a income tax to finance the Civil War.

 

[pknopp]

well, yeh, they do want to displace other peole's senators and why not? Why wouldn't someone in TX want Cheney in WY replaced? for that matter, why wouldn't people in any state want that kind of replacement? (yeh, i know, she was in the House... thank God she isn't anymore.. )

anyhow, since they have 6 years and sometimes, as u say a lifetime appointment (we need term limits, to be sure), all the more reason for already-elected legislatures to choose them..

Why shouldn't the people be able to vote for the person they want representing them? As often noted, we have term limits if we want them. We don't seem to.

 

[justaschmuck9]

Did you not read my first reply? I stated how he was wrong.




Things do have to be paid for. In todays age we can't finance a standing arming on alcohol taxes and selling off government lands.

As I noted in my first reply which I guess you didn't read, Lincoln had to enact a income tax to finance the Civil War.

There never had to be a civil war in the first damn place. Lincoln was a murderous tyrant who could have ended the secession problem w/o war and I didn't get that idea from Nap even though he is the one who taught me the details on how awful Lincoln's policies were.

When I was very young, not even 20, and had never watched news of any kind much less Fox News.. hadn't even read much RE "politics" or history or anything at all... I asked someone once: Why did there have to be a big war that killed all those people? It didn't make any sense to me and now Napolitano comes along and gives me the answer(s)... the details.

So yeh, no war, no taxes.. I like it

But Lincoln didn't. He was not the great president people have always said he was.. Read the book The Real Lincoln (not written by Napolitano) and there are others.. Napolitano mentions Lincoln in a couple of his books, always calling him a big-govt tyrant in so many words

 

[justaschmuck9]

Why shouldn't the people be able to vote for the person they want representing them? As often noted, we have term limits if we want them. We don't seem to.

well, like I said, you do not seem to understand why the states need representation in the US Congress, not so much the people per se.

If a Senator stands up against some bogus federal law or proposed law, that's just one Senator. But if the whole state legislature he belongs to comes against it, that is really something.. and that puts pressure on the Senator to do what is in the interest of the state (vis a vis federal over-reach)

Cheney did not do what was in WY's interest and she got creamed..

 

[pknopp]

There never had to be a civil war in the first damn place.

Which is irrelevant to the topic but opinion noted. I don't really disagree.

But moving on.

Lincoln was a murderous tyrant who could have ended the secession problem w/o war and I didn't get that idea from Nap even though he is the one who taught me the details on how awful Lincoln's policies were.

When I was very young, not even 20, and had never watched news of any kind much less Fox News.. hadn't even read much RE "politics" or history or anything at all... I asked someone once: Why did there have to be a big war that killed all those people? It didn't make any sense to me and now Napolitano comes along and gives me the answer(s)... the details.

So yeh, no war, no taxes.. I like it

But Lincoln didn't. He was not the great president people have always said he was.. Read the book The Real Lincoln (not written by Napolitano) and there are others.. Napolitano mentions Lincoln in a couple of his books, always calling him a big-govt tyrant in so many words

Nap (as you call him) said the 16th gave us the income tax. We both agree and understand that Lincoln enacted one long before the 16th so that argument is wrong.

The income tax enacted in 1893 I believe it was, was not struck down because it was an income tax but because of the way it was proportioned.

So do we agree he is wrong on the 16th?

 

[pknopp]

well, like I said, you do not seem to understand why the states need representation in the US Congress, not so much the people per se.

You are correct.

If a Senator stands up against some bogus federal law or proposed law, that's just one Senator. But if the whole state legislature he belongs to comes against it, that is really something.. and that puts pressure on the Senator to do what is in the interest of the state (vis a vis federal over-reach)

Cheney did not do what was in WY's interest and she got creamed..

And? It was a rare occasion where a state uses it's right to limit a Senators terms. It worked, right?