It was the summer after I graduated from high school, the world was at my feet, and between June of ’89 and July of ’90 the nine of us were inseparable. Quite literally our group formed one night in the Mullet Man’s cul-de-sac. I had never met half these guys before and I was sure I’d be treated like an interloper. See, Mullet had gone to a Lutheran prep school with these guys and had grown up around them. Mullet, the enigmatic Lurch, and I had formed a fast friendship in class at Bear Creek High and they were anxious to introduce me to the boys. So we met at Mullet’s house in preparation for a Friday night out. My apprehension was abated when Marky Mark shook my hand, tossed me a beer, and made me feel as if I’d been part of the group all along. It was like slipping on an old pair of comfortable shoes. What happened that night was a true cosmic convergence. It was perfect.
Our trip to South Padre Island for spring break in ’90 was one of those mythical road trips that have become a right of passage for every American male. We all piled into Q-Tip’s green & white ’65 Ford F100 pickup, Leonardo’s ’88 Nissan pickup, and my girl friend’s Jeep Wrangler. We left on Thursday night and got to our hotel around 6 p.m. on Friday. The drive took us through west Texas, which incidentally is like driving through the bowels of Hell, and we were praying Tip’s POS would hold together until we got to South Padre. One memorable night we went to this bar (I think it was Tequila Frogs but don’t quote me) and mainlined tequila (ever after pronounced ta-kill-ya) for a few hours. Afterwards Tip, Mullet Man, Hop-along, Hollywood, and I broke out the golf clubs and played midnight nude golf on the beach. Marky Mark, the Whiner, Lurch, and Leonardo headed back to the hotel to sleep of their bender. Once we got bored with smacking around a golf ball we went exploring and found a golf cart that belonged to one of the hotels. Being the drunk and butt naked dumbasses we were we decided to abscond with our new mode of transportation and drove around for a while. Somehow we found a pier and proceeded to drive the cart into the water. Laughing and flailing we scrambled back to shore, put our now soaking wet clothes back on, and stumbled back to our hotel. Somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico is a golf cart with our names on it.
There were those nights spent playing Risk and shooting the s**t until the wee hours of the morning. Poker night in Leonardo’s garage was always something we looked forward to. We’d get our paychecks on a Friday afternoon, cash them, and assemble at Leo’s and play poker until dawn. Lurch showed up to vainly try to recoup past losses, Mullet Man loved the pizza we got from Beau Jo’s, and Tip always started the peanut war. Lurch threw parties that were legendary. These were the type of party where you sleep where you fall and his back yard always looked like the Jonestown Massacre. Hollywood would host impromptu pool tournaments that usually degenerated into a giant smack talking festival. Mullet’s mom always cooked the bomb ass dinner for us and the look on his father’s face was priceless as the nine of us ate him out of house & home. He was always found later in front of the TV muttering something about how we all had hollow legs to be able to eat that much that quickly.
Marky Mark and Q-Tip grew up to become fire fighters and will always have my undying respect. Marky Mark has three daughters while Tip’s first kid was born about a year and a half ago. Mullet Man is still a serial monogamist and went into the real estate business with his dad. Funny, I always thought he hated the man. Lurch is now pulling down a mid six-figure salary at Charles Schwab. Leo lives in Fort Collins and works for Hewlett-Packard. The Whiner is an investment consultant and does some estate planning. Hop-along does part-time modeling, or so he says, and God only knows what else. Hollywood is married, has a kid, and works for Invesco.
My most vivid memory of these guys was July 2, 1990. We had all gathered at Mullet Man’s for a barbecue and beer. It was your average low scale get together with us and the women folk. Nothing significant happened…other than it was our last night together.
The next night, July 3, I was driving to Lake Granby to meet up with the boys for a night at some cabin and 4th of July golf tournament the next day. It was raining cats & dogs and visibility was crap. I rounded this bend on Berthoud Pass and came up on a gas tanker that was backing across the road with no running lights on or signal flairs. I had no time to stop and my Honda Civic T-boned the tool box underneath the tank. I broke my neck and have been in a wheel chair ever since. I was nineteen.
I haven’t seen Mullet, Leonardo, Hop-along, or the Whiner since Marky Mark’s wedding in ’91. Q-tip and I try to go to at least one Bronco game a year and I saw Hollywood about five years ago. I ran into Lurch at our ten year high school reunion.
I’m not trying to preach about friendship or to teach some kind of all encompassing universal truth. This also isn’t meant to be some cheap, not-so-subtle tug at the heart strings or a heavy-handed plea for sympathy. This post is simply a tribute in a very public forum to youth and eight old friends. Gentlemen, wherever you are let me say thank you and take care.
1913
Let us take a trip in the Way Back machine. The year is 1913. Crackerjack puts its first prize in their candy boxes, the temperature in Death Valley hits 134 degrees which is still the hottest recorded mark in American history, Ford Motor Company introduces its first assembly line, construction on the Panama Canal wraps up, and Thomas Woodrow Wilson is sworn in as President. Also in 1913, Rosa Parks, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Hoffa, Gerald Ford, Jesse Owens, Burt Lancaster, and J.P. Morgan all draw their first breaths while Albert Einstein worked on the theory of general relativity. This was also a dark year for the country and especially the Constitution.
In barely a two month span both the Sixteenth Amendment and the Seventeenth Amendment were ratified. The 16th ushered in the era of a national income tax and the 17th took away a birthright of the individual states. The really stunning part is the clandestine maneuvering that took place to ram these draconian measures through. These two amendments will be forever linked in annals of American history and as with all things political nothing is as it seems.
Originally proposed in 1909 the national income tax was dead on the vine. The 16th Am. languished in the state legislatures with little chance for ratification. Then the federal brokers arranged an unwritten back-room deal that would assure passage of a federal income tax. The power mongers in Washington knew that Amendment XVI would exponentially increase their supremacy and influence over the sovereign states and they were desperate to push it through. Likewise, the states were equally eager to rid themselves of the hassle of having to appoint their own senators. Thus a deal was struck. The states agreed to ratify the income tax and the feds vowed to back Am. XVII. There is nothing in writing to support this conspiracy theory but the timing was dubious at best. Amendment XVI was ratified on February 3, 1913 with Amendment XVII receiving the stamp of approval on April 8 of the same year. That’s a difference of 64 days. What a coincidence. And as we all know there are no coincidences in the world of American politics.
So, in a ravenous power grab the federal government dramatically increased its power to undreamed of levels while the states surrendered what was at one time their duty imposed by the original framers of the Constitution and endowed by our Creator. In one fell swoop the intent of a government that operates from the bottom up was turned on eats ear. No longer could the states dictate to the feds because the last vestige of state influence over federal power was handed over on a silver platter. And the US Congress took the ball and ran with it all the way to the bank.
To put it into perspective the federal budget in 1900 was $550 million. In 2004 the budget was $2.294 TRILLION, and when you do the math that’s an average yearly increase of 40%. Between 1917 and ’18 the federal coffers grew from just under one billion to over four, a boost of 400%. In 2003 federal spending topped $20,000 per household for the first time since WWII. That same year the feds taxed $16,780 per household, a deficit $3,520. Under George Bush Jr. we’ve seen the largest proportional increase in spending since Lyndon Johnson. With Ronald Reagan at the helm the budget deficit quadrupled. Lyndon Johnson spent money like a drunken sailor on shore leave and Jimmy Carter pumped up the deficit to $990 billion. The 16th Am. created a rabid monster that has yet to be tamed.
The 17th Am. was no less insidious. Because of overt laziness and political skittishness the states abdicated their ability to influence federal legislative policy. The Senate was meant to be an arm of the state legislatures, not a tool of the people, that’s what the House of representatives is for. Of the appointment of senators by the states Alexander Hamilton said this, “Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.” The question is not which method is the most accurate reflection of the will of the states but which method affords the states their greatest opportunity to protect their sovereignty. To acquiesce to a central government the states’ rights of self determination is to create a system where the government rules and legislates from the top down. The 17th Am. gave the feds absolute power over the states and as the old axiom says, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”, not to mention the basic principle of s**t ALWAYS flows down hill.
As a professed registered Democrat I realize on a prima facea level that my condemnation of the two Constitutional amendments that have done more to expand the federal government than all other amendments combined seems disingenuous but hear me out on this. But for the 16th we’d have no Social Security, welfare, Medicaid or Medicare. But for the 17th we’d have no Senate blood bath over judicial nominees or Borking, no NAFTA, or no Kyoto. I have supported many of these policies in the past but no longer can I turn a blind to the sinister influence of such a mad governmental expansion. No longer can I ignore the disastrous affects of the deterioration of state sovereignty. December 7, 1941 was a day that will live in infamy but 1913 is a year that inexorably altered the foundations of our republic and therefore scarred the very fabric of our society. 1913 was a dark year indeed.
In barely a two month span both the Sixteenth Amendment and the Seventeenth Amendment were ratified. The 16th ushered in the era of a national income tax and the 17th took away a birthright of the individual states. The really stunning part is the clandestine maneuvering that took place to ram these draconian measures through. These two amendments will be forever linked in annals of American history and as with all things political nothing is as it seems.
Originally proposed in 1909 the national income tax was dead on the vine. The 16th Am. languished in the state legislatures with little chance for ratification. Then the federal brokers arranged an unwritten back-room deal that would assure passage of a federal income tax. The power mongers in Washington knew that Amendment XVI would exponentially increase their supremacy and influence over the sovereign states and they were desperate to push it through. Likewise, the states were equally eager to rid themselves of the hassle of having to appoint their own senators. Thus a deal was struck. The states agreed to ratify the income tax and the feds vowed to back Am. XVII. There is nothing in writing to support this conspiracy theory but the timing was dubious at best. Amendment XVI was ratified on February 3, 1913 with Amendment XVII receiving the stamp of approval on April 8 of the same year. That’s a difference of 64 days. What a coincidence. And as we all know there are no coincidences in the world of American politics.
So, in a ravenous power grab the federal government dramatically increased its power to undreamed of levels while the states surrendered what was at one time their duty imposed by the original framers of the Constitution and endowed by our Creator. In one fell swoop the intent of a government that operates from the bottom up was turned on eats ear. No longer could the states dictate to the feds because the last vestige of state influence over federal power was handed over on a silver platter. And the US Congress took the ball and ran with it all the way to the bank.
To put it into perspective the federal budget in 1900 was $550 million. In 2004 the budget was $2.294 TRILLION, and when you do the math that’s an average yearly increase of 40%. Between 1917 and ’18 the federal coffers grew from just under one billion to over four, a boost of 400%. In 2003 federal spending topped $20,000 per household for the first time since WWII. That same year the feds taxed $16,780 per household, a deficit $3,520. Under George Bush Jr. we’ve seen the largest proportional increase in spending since Lyndon Johnson. With Ronald Reagan at the helm the budget deficit quadrupled. Lyndon Johnson spent money like a drunken sailor on shore leave and Jimmy Carter pumped up the deficit to $990 billion. The 16th Am. created a rabid monster that has yet to be tamed.
The 17th Am. was no less insidious. Because of overt laziness and political skittishness the states abdicated their ability to influence federal legislative policy. The Senate was meant to be an arm of the state legislatures, not a tool of the people, that’s what the House of representatives is for. Of the appointment of senators by the states Alexander Hamilton said this, “Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.” The question is not which method is the most accurate reflection of the will of the states but which method affords the states their greatest opportunity to protect their sovereignty. To acquiesce to a central government the states’ rights of self determination is to create a system where the government rules and legislates from the top down. The 17th Am. gave the feds absolute power over the states and as the old axiom says, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”, not to mention the basic principle of s**t ALWAYS flows down hill.
As a professed registered Democrat I realize on a prima facea level that my condemnation of the two Constitutional amendments that have done more to expand the federal government than all other amendments combined seems disingenuous but hear me out on this. But for the 16th we’d have no Social Security, welfare, Medicaid or Medicare. But for the 17th we’d have no Senate blood bath over judicial nominees or Borking, no NAFTA, or no Kyoto. I have supported many of these policies in the past but no longer can I turn a blind to the sinister influence of such a mad governmental expansion. No longer can I ignore the disastrous affects of the deterioration of state sovereignty. December 7, 1941 was a day that will live in infamy but 1913 is a year that inexorably altered the foundations of our republic and therefore scarred the very fabric of our society. 1913 was a dark year indeed.
17th Amendment: An afternoon conversation
I was breaking bread with a dear friend of mine, hereafter known as Forest, on Friday over a couple bland burritos. He’s a staunch conservative and a huge fan of George Bush Jr. and I’m a registered Democrat who views the current president as a harbinger of Armageddon so, naturally, our political discussions are spirited to say the least. We were bandying about the current judicial filibuster flap and the now infamous Newsweek brain fart. Eventually our talk turned to my theory that the 17th Amendment should be abolished and boy did the fur start to fly. It is my recent contention, call it an epiphany, that choosing U.S. Senators by popular vote is contradictory to the original intent of the Constitution. Article I states; “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.” The 17th Am. unequivocally obliterates this provision and gives the power to the people to choose the members of the Senate.
As he is apt to do Forest brought up a couple of interesting points to refute my contention. First, he said that returning the senatorial selection method to its original framework, i.e. state legislatures select senators, political cronyism and nepotism would hold sway over the process. Second, Forest feels that this would add yet another layer of cumbersome bureaucracy to an already sluggish governmental instrument. Forest went as far to say that my theory is symptomatic of my supposed allegiance to expanded government. Third, he says that the current electoral process is as accurate a reflection of the legislative will of the states as the original Article I stipulation was.
Forest always keeps me on my toes but he’s utterly wrong on this one.
The Federalist Paper No. 62 says, “The qualifications proposed for senators, as distinguished from those of representatives, consist in a more advanced age and a longer period of citizenship. A senator must be thirty years of age at least; as a representative must be twenty-five. And the former must have been a citizen nine years; as seven years are required for the latter. The propriety of these distinctions is explained by the nature of the senatorial trust, which, requiring greater extent of information and stability of character, requires at the same time that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages; and which, participating immediately in transactions with foreign nations, ought to be exercised by none who are not thoroughly weaned from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education.” This is a clear manifestation by two of the Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, that Senators need to be more mature and qualified because of the nature of their unique responsibilities. The only way to ensure this is letting the state legislatures appoint Senators, cronyism and nepotism be damned. ‘Tis better to err on the side of a quid pro quo arrangement than to let a glorified beauty contest that is a general election choose members of the most powerful and influential legislative body in the land. General elections have degenerated into a preening contest where one-upmanship carries the day. Eliminate the frenzied election, replace it with an appointment mechanism and you create a system where candidates have to run on their qualifications and not on whether their hair is styled correctly or the cut of the navy-blue suit is flattering or dignified.
Admittedly, as seen by the bloodbath in the Senate over judicial appointments, the process for appointing anyone to a position higher than little league coach can be a bit tedious. It stands to reason that a state legislature would grind to a halt should they be entrusted with appointing members of the Senate. The very first session of Congress saw the state of New York without a senator because of a gird-locked state legislature. Thus was born the 17th Amendment, a little modification that was supposed to solve the problem of endless debate on the state level. Seems that the states no longer wished to be burdened with the arduous task they had been entrusted with. But we’ve exchanged one bureaucratic nightmare for another. Infinitely more costly, general elections also ensure that senators can literally ignore their constituency for four years and campaign for the last two years of their tenure. General elections and the onerous campaigns that are a little ancillary effect are expensive, mind numbing, and quite frankly boring. A state level dog fight would be far more entertaining than watching still-born stuffed shirts pontificate about issues they’ll do nothing about four 2/3 of their term anyway. Give me the state feud and you can have your multi-million dollar election. If anything abolishing the 17th would save millions of tax payers' dollars. How does this increase the size of government? Tell me, I'm dying to know.
The most important and intriguing question is which scheme is a more accurate reflection of the states’ will. However, there is an even more fundamental threshold issue that must be addressed; should the Senate be a vassal of the states or of the people. Clearly Article I intended for the Senate to be a voice for the individual states. Therein lays the rub. The framers of the Constitution never intended for the Senate to be in the hands of the people. That’s what the House of Representatives is for. Forest’s third point appears to be moot, especially when you apply another proviso to the equation. Article V stated, “No State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” Echoing this sentiment, James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #43, “The prohibition against the adoption of any amendment whereby a state is deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent involves two things: first, that if the state chooses to consent, it may be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate; and, second, that it may not, by any amendment, be deprived of its power to give or refuse its consent.” Simply put, any state that does not wish to acquiesce to Am. XVII doesn’t have to. This is one of the most stunning bits of political trickery in American history.
The more research I do the more convinced I become that the 17th Amendment has done irreparable damage to this country. This insidious concoction of legal slight of hand has led to the rampant partisanship that stonewalls nearly all meaningful change. The states have lost their voice in Congress due in no small part to laziness and apathy. Contrary to original intent the states have literally no say in the process that fundamentally and profoundly affects their sovereignty and we have Amendment XVII to thank for that.
As he is apt to do Forest brought up a couple of interesting points to refute my contention. First, he said that returning the senatorial selection method to its original framework, i.e. state legislatures select senators, political cronyism and nepotism would hold sway over the process. Second, Forest feels that this would add yet another layer of cumbersome bureaucracy to an already sluggish governmental instrument. Forest went as far to say that my theory is symptomatic of my supposed allegiance to expanded government. Third, he says that the current electoral process is as accurate a reflection of the legislative will of the states as the original Article I stipulation was.
Forest always keeps me on my toes but he’s utterly wrong on this one.
The Federalist Paper No. 62 says, “The qualifications proposed for senators, as distinguished from those of representatives, consist in a more advanced age and a longer period of citizenship. A senator must be thirty years of age at least; as a representative must be twenty-five. And the former must have been a citizen nine years; as seven years are required for the latter. The propriety of these distinctions is explained by the nature of the senatorial trust, which, requiring greater extent of information and stability of character, requires at the same time that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages; and which, participating immediately in transactions with foreign nations, ought to be exercised by none who are not thoroughly weaned from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education.” This is a clear manifestation by two of the Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, that Senators need to be more mature and qualified because of the nature of their unique responsibilities. The only way to ensure this is letting the state legislatures appoint Senators, cronyism and nepotism be damned. ‘Tis better to err on the side of a quid pro quo arrangement than to let a glorified beauty contest that is a general election choose members of the most powerful and influential legislative body in the land. General elections have degenerated into a preening contest where one-upmanship carries the day. Eliminate the frenzied election, replace it with an appointment mechanism and you create a system where candidates have to run on their qualifications and not on whether their hair is styled correctly or the cut of the navy-blue suit is flattering or dignified.
Admittedly, as seen by the bloodbath in the Senate over judicial appointments, the process for appointing anyone to a position higher than little league coach can be a bit tedious. It stands to reason that a state legislature would grind to a halt should they be entrusted with appointing members of the Senate. The very first session of Congress saw the state of New York without a senator because of a gird-locked state legislature. Thus was born the 17th Amendment, a little modification that was supposed to solve the problem of endless debate on the state level. Seems that the states no longer wished to be burdened with the arduous task they had been entrusted with. But we’ve exchanged one bureaucratic nightmare for another. Infinitely more costly, general elections also ensure that senators can literally ignore their constituency for four years and campaign for the last two years of their tenure. General elections and the onerous campaigns that are a little ancillary effect are expensive, mind numbing, and quite frankly boring. A state level dog fight would be far more entertaining than watching still-born stuffed shirts pontificate about issues they’ll do nothing about four 2/3 of their term anyway. Give me the state feud and you can have your multi-million dollar election. If anything abolishing the 17th would save millions of tax payers' dollars. How does this increase the size of government? Tell me, I'm dying to know.
The most important and intriguing question is which scheme is a more accurate reflection of the states’ will. However, there is an even more fundamental threshold issue that must be addressed; should the Senate be a vassal of the states or of the people. Clearly Article I intended for the Senate to be a voice for the individual states. Therein lays the rub. The framers of the Constitution never intended for the Senate to be in the hands of the people. That’s what the House of Representatives is for. Forest’s third point appears to be moot, especially when you apply another proviso to the equation. Article V stated, “No State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” Echoing this sentiment, James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #43, “The prohibition against the adoption of any amendment whereby a state is deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent involves two things: first, that if the state chooses to consent, it may be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate; and, second, that it may not, by any amendment, be deprived of its power to give or refuse its consent.” Simply put, any state that does not wish to acquiesce to Am. XVII doesn’t have to. This is one of the most stunning bits of political trickery in American history.
The more research I do the more convinced I become that the 17th Amendment has done irreparable damage to this country. This insidious concoction of legal slight of hand has led to the rampant partisanship that stonewalls nearly all meaningful change. The states have lost their voice in Congress due in no small part to laziness and apathy. Contrary to original intent the states have literally no say in the process that fundamentally and profoundly affects their sovereignty and we have Amendment XVII to thank for that.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
