Is the 17th Amendment unconstitutional?

In Skousen's The 5,000-Year Leap, he makes an interesting point on the importance of the balance between Federal Government and States.

The federal government was supreme in all matters relating to its responsibility, but it was specifically restricted from invading the independence and sovereign authority reserved to the States.  The Founders felt that unless this principle of dual sovereignty was carefully perpetuated, the healthy independence of each would deteriorate and eventually one or the other would become totally dominant.

Alexander Hamilton further explained,

This balance between the national and state governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance.  It forms a double security to the people.  If one encroaches on their rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other.  Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits, by certain rivalship which will ever subsist between them. (Essays on Freedom and Power).

Skousen then asks an important question,

But would the states be able to protect themselves from the might of the federal government if the Congress began legislating against states' rights?  Originally, the states could protect themselves because U.S. Senators were appointed by the state legislatures, and the Senate could veto any legislation by the House of Representatives which they considered a threat to the rights of the individual states.

Well, the 17th amendment pretty much abolished this right of the states.

That amendment provided that Senators would thenceforth be elected by popular ballot rather than appointed by the state legislatures.  This meant the states as sovereign commonwealths had lost their representation on the federal level, and their Senators would be subject to the same popular pressures during an election campaign as those which confront the members of the House of Representatives. (Ibid., Skousen)

I haven't done any research on the circumstances surrounding the ratification of the 17th amendment, but I'd be interested to find out the justifications for taking away this right of the States.  I've often wondered what is the real difference between a Senator and a Representative.  One has a longer term than the other, there's only two of one and the other is proportionate to the states population relative to other states.  It makes a lot more sense the way it was originally defined in the Constitution.

Law Should Be Understandable and Stable

In the Federalist Papers, No. 62, James Madison states,

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known and less fixed?"

I don't think Mr. Madison would be very pleased with our government today, particularly with this 2000+ page Health Reform plan that keeps getting shot back and forth between the two houses of congress with earmarks added here and pork there. Our government should not be this obfuscated.

Maybe this is how a lot of laws are, and for some reason the health bill got to be a little more transparent than others.  I don't believe it is alone on the docket.  If a bill has to be so complex and enumerated, I have a feeling that it probably is beyond the capability of our federal government to do anything about it.  The federal government is to provide for the general welfare of the U.S., and this is getting a little too specific; something that should be a concern of the states at most.

Stargirl

Stargirl by Jerry Spinelli

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

I probably would have given this 4 stars had it ended the way I would have liked it to end. I thought this was a great story on getting outside of yourself and learning to not let other people determine who you are going to be or who you want to be. You need to have courage and love to put other people before yourself.

[Spoiler Alert:]

I think that the ending was a little unfair to Leo. He was actually the one who gave Stargirl a chance to begin with, and even endured the shunning with her (though not for long). I agree he was weak to begin with and probably didn't deserve to be with Stargirl. The unfairness comes in when the whole school (minus Hillari and her boyfriend) ends up forgiving her at the Ocotillo dance. Leo had somewhat befriended her when hardly anyone else would have, and he's the one that's kind a hung out to dry at the end.

Maybe Leo was more of the antagonist in that he's the one who let Stargirl down the most. He couldn't accept her for who she really was. The school couldn't either, but they eventually did. I think Leo may have actually been a little mentally handicapped, to be so dense. Or maybe it's just because he's a guy, and guys are no good at picking up clues.

View all my reviews...

How to Tie Your Shoes the Right Way

I've been tying my shoes wrong for my entire life!  Just a few days of tying them correctly and they haven't come untied yet, a personal record!  Actually they normally don't come untied, but that's because I end up having to tie a double-knot.  This explanation makes it very clear how to tie a single knot (a reef knot) that will only get tighter as it sits on your shoe, not looser. The video from the site is here below, but check out the actual explanation if it's knot quite clear.

Original NES Games on Wii - Black Screen?

I downloaded Double Dragon from the original NES for my Wii (I had 500 points to use, and it didn't occur to me to use them towards something a little more entertaining...to bad you can't sell them.)  All I could get was a black screen and sometimes some cool DD music. 

It turns out that the old NES games were made to only be displayed on TV's with 200 lines, and my LCD has a bit more.  So in order to magnify the 200 lines to 400 I had to enter into the operations guide for the game (from the game hit the home button on the Wii remote, then select Operations Guide), connect a nun-chuck and then simultaneously hit "Z" + "A" + "2".  The Wii made it's "ding" sound, and the game showed up.  Supposedly the Wii should remember these settings for any type of game like this.  Oddly I didn't have this problem with Super Mario Bros. 3.

2 Nephi 20 - Thoughts on God's governing strategy and America's

2 Nephi 20 starts off by talking about neglecting the poor and made me think of today's society. The democrats seem to think that everyone needs to have the same "things." I got to thinking, why does God have a special group of people that he seems to favor and promise things to (the House of Israel) and destroy other nonbelievers once they've served their purpose in making the House of Israel suffer for their wickedness? The scriptures tell us that He is no respecter of persons. So I thought back to the beginning. God revealed his will to Adam who then had the responsibility to teach his family. He taught them, but some chose to not listen and as a result many generations have been lost in unbelief. God will not force us to listen to him. He will make sure that everyone has a chance to accept the gospel, but that doesn't mean they have to.

Now this isn't anything new to me. However, the connection I drew to our government was what made me really think (along with reading in the 5000 Year Leap by Skousen). The Declaration of Independence states that, "all men are created equal." We know that we are not literally equal (not in "physical strength, mental capacity, emotional stability, inherited social status, in their opportunities for self-fulfillment, etc." [Skousen]), Skousen says we can really only be equal in three ways:

1. Treated as equals in the sight of God
2. Treated as equals in the sight of the law
3. Treated as equals in the protection of their rights.

Skousen elaborates on number three by saying,

"The Founders distinguished between equal rights and other areas where equality is impossible. They recognized that society should seek to provide equal oppportunity but not expect equal results; provide equal freedom but not expect equal capacity; provide equal rights but not equal possessions; provide equal protection but not equal status; provide equal educational opportunities but not equal grades.

"They knew that even if governmental compulsion were used to force its citizens to appear equal in material circumstances, they would immediately become unequal the instant their freedom was restored to them. As Alexander Hamilton said: 'Inequality would exist as long as liberty existed.... It would unavoidably result from that very liberty itself.'"

Watchmen

Watchmen by Alan Moore

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

The first comic book/graphic novel I've read (not sure if they're even separate genres). Talk about complex psychological characters... It was definitely a lot smarter read than I thought. I've never thought of giving much credit to the comic book genre, but it can definitely conjure up some pretty complex plots and moral dilemmas.

This was a little bloodier than I imagined, the language was fairly heavy, I was mainly irked at the frequency of the use of God's name in vain (in a book that pretty much was set in a place where God did not exist, probably juxtaposed to emphasize the absence of God), and a few sexual escapades, mostly occurring off-page. The human race is made to be inherently savage, almost nobody able to stand up for good.

Good and evil were too convoluted, though Rorschach, who seems to be the most morally strict (though somewhat deranged - though probably excusable considering the world he lived in), seems to be the one person you end up caring for the most and ends up getting blasted for wanting to do what is right (again, without any higher moral law to ascribe to, could it possibly be right?). Can good and evil be as black and white as a Rorschach test? To those who are morally inane, probably not, but being worthy of divine enlightenment, I do believe it is possible.

This definitely won't be my last comic read. I think I might take a stab at The Dark Knight next. Any other recommendations?

View all my reviews.

The Return of the Prodigal Son

The Return of the Prodigal Son by Henri J.M. Nouwen


My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Amazing insight on the parable of the Prodigal son. His doctrinal interpretation transcend any religious barriers. One of the 12 Apostles (Jeffrey Holland) referenced this book in his talk a few years back on the topic of the other (referring to the elder son) prodigal son.

His overall conclusion is that our ultimate goal in this life is not only to make our way back to the Father, but to become like Him.

"...I was prepared to accept that not only the younger son, but also the elder son would reveal to me an important aspect of my spiritual journey. For a long time the father remained 'the other,' the one who would receive me, forgive me, offer me a home, and give me peace and joy. The father was the place to return to, the goal of my journey, the final resting place. It was only gradually and often quite painfully that I came to realize that my spiritual journey would never be complete as long as the father remained an outsider...

"What I am called to make true is that whether I am the younger or the elder son, I am the son of my compassionate Father. I am an heir. No one says it more clearly than Paul when he writes: 'The Spirit himself joins with our spirit to bear witness that we are children of God. And if we are children, then we are heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, provided that we share his sufferings, so as to share his glory' [Romans 8:16-17]. Indeed, as son and heir I am to become successor. I am destined to step into my Father's place and offer to others the same compassion that he has offered me. The return to the Father is ultimately the challenge to become the Father."

View all my reviews...