Connect with us

Opinions

Jeff Flake is a reminder of why we need to abolish the 17th Amendment

Published

on

Jeff Flake is a reminder of why we need to abolish the 17th Amendment

It was a shock to see Jeff Flake’s performance in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday afternoon. On the vote he caved into the Democrats stalling measure to have an additional FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh prior to his nomination vote on the Senate floor. Jeff Flake once again reminded everybody that he is in the Senate for himself. It seems noble that an individual would oppose party lines and think freely in the Senate. The existence of political mavericks would be splendid in a seat that was up for reelections more frequently than every six years. But a Senator in the United State is afforded the luxury of a six year, six figure salary, acting a fool as they please.

Who does a Senator represent?

The 17th Amendment called for the direct election of Senators by the people. The people already had representation in our bicameral legislature. The House of Representatives serves as the direct voice of the people, while the Senate served as a voice for the states. Now that Senators no longer represent their state, who do they represent? Is it their constituents? Or themselves? In theory, since the 17th Amendment was a populist amendment, the Senator is now a representative of the people? But what incentive does a Senator have to represent the people, rather than themselves.

Arizona is an excellent case study, in which we have three vastly different subjects. John McCain consistently had one of the worst voting records in the US Senate. According to GovTrack, from Jan 1987 to Aug 2018, McCain missed 1,220 of 10,383 roll call votes, which is 11.7%. This is much worse than the median of 1.5% among the lifetime records of senators serving in Aug 2018. Even into death, when physically unable to perform the duties of a Senator, John McCain refused to abdicate the position. Prior to the 17th Amendment, despite a six year term, the state could recall their Senators for various reasons. New Jersey was unable to remove Bob Menendez while he faced trial and Florida was unable to remove Marco Rubio while he was moping in 2015. Minnesota had to wait for Al Franken to resign. Removing an underperforming, inactive, or scandal enthralled Senator is entirely difficult in our society.

In contrast, compare that with Senator Jon Kyl. He has been appointed to temporarily replace John McCain. He was appointed with the confidence that he would vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Jon Kyl will represent the interests of the state of Arizona, or at a minimum, its governor. And while the state cannot hold him to accountable, Jon Kyl recognizes his task to represent the state, as he is not currently an elected official. Jeff Flake who is retiring has been considered a wild card for some time now because he’s accountable to only himself.

Full Repeal

The return of the Senate to the states would cut down on underperformance. If a state is underrepresented in the Senate it would be their fault, but that issue was already rare. If a Senator missed key votes, voted the wrong way, or committed conduct unbecoming, they could be recalled. Senate elections wouldn’t require millions of dollars or PAC funding, a bone that leftist can chew on. Now further examine the content of state legislatures. A trifecta is where one party controls both houses and the governorship. There are currently 26 Republican trifectas among the states. That would equal 52 Senators to the Democrats easy 16 Senators from their 8 trifectas. This leaves a contestable 32 Senate seats. An even split of the 32 would give the GOP 68 votes, a supermajority that can withstand a few RINOs. Kavanaugh’s confirmation would be in no danger. The country may in fact curb spending eventually. Obamacare would have been repealed, or never enacted in the first place. The country would experience a massive shift to the right just by returning power to the states. The Democrats would have to shift away from socialism and back to being a “Worker’s Party” just to win votes. Conservatives should champion this issue. And if any good can come out of Jeff Flake, Conservatives should start talking about this movement.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Immigration

100K released in 3 months: What’s the point in arresting illegal immigrants if ICE doesn’t have a way to hold them?

Published

on

100K released in 3 months Whats the point in arresting illegal immigrants if ICE doesnt have a way t

Over 100,000 illegal immigrants have been released by ICE following apprehension in the last three months alone. That’s more than 1,000 per day. Why are they doing this? Because Washington DC refuses to give them the resources or facilities they need to deal with the national emergency at the border.

And yes, this is an emergency. We can debate all day about whether or not it’s a national emergency that should be declared as such by the President or whether he should have been getting this tough on the issue long before the Democrats won control of the House of Representatives, but what can’t be argued is whether or not this problem has grown to the status of being a true and tangible crisis.

It’s not manufactured as a scare tactic. It’s not the White House bending numbers, as many in mainstream media want to believe. This is real.

As the Daily Caller points out, only some of the 100,000 released illegal immigrants have been required to wear tracking devices:

There are plenty of dysfunctional programs and agencies in the United States. That can be expected since government generally doesn’t handle situations with efficiency, frugality, or common sense. But there are certain responsibilities of the government that should get special treatment. Our national defense, whether through the military or from outside threats such as illegal immigration, should be a high priority for our representatives in Washington DC to get right. The fact they’re dropping this particular ball so spectacularly is unacceptable.

We have our own problems among American citizens. We don’t need to inherit more problems by allowing the borders to be wide open as they are, then to not even empower our law enforcement agency tasked with capturing and detaining illegal immigrants only exacerbates the problem.

I’ve spoken out against the GOP’s lackadaisical approach to border security since before President Trump took office. I’ve continued to denounce their inactivity and the bad advice that prompted the President to wait until December, 2018, to finally put his foot down on the issue. Now we’re seeing the fruits of their inactivity.

With that said, it’s still the Democrats who are the main cause for consternation.

The problem isn’t that Democrats don’t acknowledge the invasion at the border that is overwhelming all current methods of security. It’s that they don’t care. This is what they want. America’s sovereignty is unimportant to them.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Joe Biden is considering Stacyy Abrams as his running mate. Why hasn’t he declared yet?

Published

on

Joe Biden is considering Stacyy Abrams as his running mate Why hasnt he declared yet

The Joe Biden saga keeps getting stranger every week. While most anticipate the former Vice President is going to run for President in 2020, he still hasn’t announced despite most of the major candidates who were expected to run have already made their announcement. Now, a report that his staff is considering asking former Democratic contender for Georgia Governor Stacey Abrams continues to add fuel to speculation while also making this whole thing even more strange.

In 2016, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) made the rare move of announcing his Vice Presidential candidate, Carly Fiorina, before securing the nomination. It was a desperate move at a time when his prospects for defeating Donald Trump were fading and it didn’t work out. Biden’s alleged move is very different. He’s ahead in the very early polls even before the first debate, let alone the Iowa caucus. Yet speculating about a potential VP seems out of place, just like everything else in this whole debacle.

My theory is he’s trying to minimize the potential attack channels by cautiously field-testing everything first. By gathering data without officially announcing a run, he has the luxury of riding the speculation train as long as he can. He would be the instant frontrunner if he were to announce, but if history tells us anything, frontrunner status rarely means much. Hillary Clinton was the frontrunner from beginning to end in 2016, but even then the speculation of a late run by Biden was appealing to many Democrats.

Biden likely fears being the early frontrunner will generate fatigue for his name being tossed around so often. It’s still early; at this point in 2015, only one major GOP candidate, Cruz, had officially announced his run. Biden wants to ride the speculation as long as possible knowing once he’s officially in, he’s open to attacks. Just as his old boss President Obama did in 2008, some lesser known high-energy candidate could sneak up on the frontrunner and knock them off quickly. In 2015, Jeb Bush and Scott Walker were early frontrunners before being embarrassingly tossed aside by Trump and the other candidates.

Whether or not Biden selects Abrams, and if she’s willing to take the nomination, this type of speculation allows him to stay in the news while people continue to hold their collective breath about a future announcement.

Bottom line, he’s running. He’s been running for a while. The fact that he’s not official yet only plays into the fundraising he’s missing, which he’ll be able to make up quickly once he announces. All in all, the Democratic race is turning hilarious.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Media

Big League Politics editor Patrick Howley speaks out against Fox News following Judge Pirro removal

Published

on

Big League Politics editor Patrick Howley speaks out against Fox News following Judge Pirro removal

When Judge Jeanine Pirro questioned whether or not hijabs worn by Congresswomen was antithetical to the Constitution because it represented sharia law (which is definitely antithetical to the Constitution), the Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded Fox News remove the host and her show.

Fox News complied.

Conservatives across the nation are speaking out against the move and Fox News itself. We expressed our opinions about Fox News the other day, noting they’re not the place for conservatives to be finding their news. Now, conservative news source One America News brought on Big League Politics editor-in-chief Patrick Howley to give his perspectives on the firing and the future of Fox News.

To sum it up, Howley said “the only way to fight back against Fox News is to tune them out.” Considering the direction they’ve been taking recently, this is clearly sound advice. OAN is a great alternative.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report