Musings on the 17th Amendment

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.


Prior to this amendment , the States Senators were chosen by the individual states legislatures, this amendment , changed that so that the people voted for the representation. and at first glance that would seem to be a good idea where as this Republic is of the people by the people and for the people, but if you compare what we have now , to what the founders had in place , you can see that someone lost some influence with this amendment.
In my view , as originally intended in the US Constitution , the people were suppose to be represented in the House of Representatives thus they have always had the vote there for their representation ,that's also the shortest term in government , 2 yrs , my view is the reasoning was , peoples opinions change sometimes quickly so they needed a way to have current representation, those members of the Senate , were intended to be representation for the States , to insure , that individual States rights were protected, Remember , then the Senators were chosen by the States legislature , whom in turn was also elected by the people so the people never really gained anything in being able to vote for state Senators since supposedly , they already had a say (vote) through their state representatives to the legislature.
What this amendment means to me , is that the responsibility for choosing any Senator was put back onto the people directly , instead of being answerable to a few legislators in State Government , it made the Senator answerable to everyone in the state. and from what i see it also made it more difficult to recall any representative that was going against the will of the people.
Now I will admit , as far as is this amendment good or bad , do I want to keep it or have it repealed , I'm on the fence with those questions. that's something I'm wondering about, since my entire life has been lived under it i have seen no other way it works so I honestly don't know, Now if the Founders , intended the Senate to be the protector of States rights in Congress , there must have been compelling reasons the People wanted to change the process, and that's something , i think needs to be looked at. whats your thoughts?

My Apologies for being lax in posting here.

Recently , i became a State forum moderator over at OathKeepers, and i have been busy, learning what that entails , subsiquently , this Blog suffered for my preoccupation. I still intent to keep blogging , but unfortunately , its going to be as i can , i will try to at least get 1 post a week in on things of interest and my thoughts.

Been taking some time off

I had some plumbing problems to attend to after the recent sub zero weather , and have been taking some time off , i hope those that have been following this blog have found some of the other blogs i follow as entertaining as i do , though there are many subjects i could be talking about , nothing at the moment is jumping out at me , demanding to be discussed, for this i apologize, but tomorrow is a new day and with it will come new things , lets see if something speaks to me.

Musings on how things look a year after the DHS right wing extremist report

Just under a year ago, the Department of homeland security released a report on right wing extremism in this nation and whom they are. The report i read is here:
http://moelane.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf and not long after that by about a month they also released a report entitled left wing extremism almost as an afterthought. The glaring difference of both reports , was in the methods both these reports said the sides would use, where the right wing side were supposedly going to resort to violence , the left wing side which i count the present administration as decidedly and biasely LEFT wing as well as anyone they employ in any departments , said the lefts mod us operandi would be of the more benign sort of cyber warfare, hacking and disruption of service , things basically annoying inconvenient and totally non violent, lets flash forward to a couple of Tea party demonstrations, we all remember the gentleman attacked selling Gadsden flags to the protesters by some union thugs , did anyone else hear that the same thing happened in Florida to a protester? That that person was also man handled and assaulted along with his wife? what about the implied threat of violence form the left ? never heard of that i bet., what about the blatant changing of schedules and venues to protect incumbant leftist Congress people, or seeding the audience with those to shout down legitimate questions? if they are allowed to speak at all.yes totally nonviolent right?
Right after , reading the DHS report i kind of simplified it down to the few needed points, i share them with you.
Right Wing Extremist as THEY (left wing morons) define it:
1. Anyone who did not vote for Chairman Obama.
2. Anyone who believes that America is not to blame for every sulphur fart that is let around the world.
3. Anyone who believes that the US Constitution supersedes the U N Charter.
4. Anyone who watches Fox News or listens to talk radio.
5. Anyone without their head 2 feet up Chairman Obama's poop chute.
6. Anyone who believes that church is a place to know, worship and serve God while bringing as many others as possible along; versus a community organizers platform to brainwash people with Black Liberation Theology, including racial and America hate.
7. Anyone who does not think that the MSM gets everything that they say as Divine guidance from the Bible.
8. Anyone who is sure that human reproduction would cease, as would civilization if homosexual practices become as normal as the left would like to see them.
9. Anyone who believes that racism is a 2 way street.
10. Anyone who believes that God created everything, He owns everything and that the concept of separation of Church and State has a totally pointless and futile meaning.
Any one of those things will land you on alist of Right wing extremists.

i think that pretty much sums up what I read in the report,and its kind of funny how none of the violence thus far committed has been done by those that it was predicted it would be done by. Of course , there are lone wolf actions in the past yr, but those can happen even in the best of times right?well even a blind squirrel gets lucky sometimes and finds a nut, that's how i feel about those self fulfilling prophecies from government agencies,and thats what i think they are hoping for, for their report to be made valid and someone some where , prove they didnt waste all that money and resourses compiling that report , our tax dollars at work folks. so what do you think?

Is there a Constitutional right to form Militias?UPDATED

A comment was made about the Constitutional right to form Militias , and that got me wondering , so i took a look , the word Militia appears in the US Constitution in 4 separate sections , In Art 1 sec 8 , under the powers of Congress: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
As you can see , this is the power of Congress to write the rules , not the peoples, those rules are found in US CODE.

The next mention of Militia is in Art2 sec 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
This declared the President as the Commander in chief.
Of course the best known mention of Militia comes in this next section the 2nd Amendment:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
All this is telling me is that the Militia is seen as necessary and that the people are the militia, the only right here is that of the people to keep and bear arms and that the government cannot infringe on that right. It does not give the people the right to form a militia outside of the constitutional powers of the congress.
The last mention of Militia is in the 5th Amendment :No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Now i can be wrong here , but this tells me that a member of a militia can be called to answer (tried) for a capital crime without indictment , maybe because they fall under a different justice system? and there is a different set of rules under that system?
Now I'm willing to bet , for states that joined the Union after the ratification of the Constitution that their respective State Constitution's , will reflect what then the US Constitution and then US Code stated and I'm also willing to bet , that the congressional powers as far as Militias is delegated to the state Govornors and respective State Legislatures.
I have not looked into the nuances of US code , or the differing state Constitutions so there of course may be something there, but the answer i come up with is there is a Constitutional right to form militias , the right of the government to do so is plainly stated , but i see no provision that gives that right to the people, now dependant of different states statues and laws , if that right is delegated down further to the people to form their own remains to be seen. what does anyone else think?

UPDATE

After some discussion on this subject it was pointed out to me that i was very narrow sighted in my perception and i whole heartedly agree that i have been , i was looking at this subject , from a narrow view of the law and what is said in the US Constitution, What i failed to take into account, was Natural law , or natural right, something we all have and have never given up. and in taking that into consideration and a hefty oh duuuuh!!!!! moment i saw the supporting in the US Constitution for the subject , it was right in front of me and i never connected the two, it was the 9TH Amendment.supported by the 10th.
What have i learned? don't be so set in your ways that you fail`to look at other views on subject , and i have also learned crow tastes better with Tabasco.... please pass the Tabasco.