Knightskye
03-18-2010, 11:45 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonard-zeskind/ron-paul-and-the-tea-part_b_504559.html
Once the Seventeenth Amendment passed, the constitution became inherently more democratic. Removing it, per Ron Paul, has to be considered anti-democratic; on a par with, say, eliminating the Nineteenth Amendment, ratified in 1920, which was supposed to guarantee all women the right to vote. Or with ignoring the Fourteenth Amendment.
1. You're damn right it's "anti-democratic". We're a Republic. The people elect the House of Representatives and the President. State legislatures electing the Senate gives us balanced government power.
2. I'm skimming through the Constitution now. What, exactly, prohibited women from voting?
Once the Seventeenth Amendment passed, the constitution became inherently more democratic. Removing it, per Ron Paul, has to be considered anti-democratic; on a par with, say, eliminating the Nineteenth Amendment, ratified in 1920, which was supposed to guarantee all women the right to vote. Or with ignoring the Fourteenth Amendment.
1. You're damn right it's "anti-democratic". We're a Republic. The people elect the House of Representatives and the President. State legislatures electing the Senate gives us balanced government power.
2. I'm skimming through the Constitution now. What, exactly, prohibited women from voting?