John Adams on Aristocracy, Democracy, and Tyranny

Article V Blog ^ | December 21st 2016 | Rodney Dodsworth

[Jacquerie]

My previous posts regarding repeal of the horrid 17th Amendment were built on a simple republican foundation; members of republics are represented in the lawmaking body. The Constitution acts on the people and states, and both had their place in congress until 1913. In its wake, the 17th Amendment left behind a federal Constitution without a federal government.

Here, I take a different tack as to why the 17A must go. I will show from the standpoint of balancing society's natural proclivities, we must reestablish a federal senate of the states. Without a strong middle institution to repel democracy, the people grow in power. In time, they appoint a leader who uses the people to establish tyranny. My reference is John Adams’ 1787 (Vol. I) A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, Letters XXIV and XXV.

The opening half of Volume I explored the historic battles for dominance between the one, the few, and the many in various monarchies, aristocracies, and republics since ancient times. Free government principles were known since the reign of Darius, as were the pro/con of representative vs. direct democracy since Lycurgus. [pages II, III] Various mixtures of these simple forms were met with greater success by the Romans. Central to the lessons learned from the Roman Republic, and reflected in subsequent nations from Venice to isolated Swiss cantons, to England, was the necessity of a solid middle institution, a senate, a council, a House of Lords to balance the interests between the mass of the people and chief executive, whether he be a King, Stadholder, Burgomaster, or Doge.

From his study, Adams wrote, “Without three orders, and an effectual balance between them, in every American constitution, it must be destined to frequent unavoidable revolutions; if

[RobynCampbell]

There is a better solution. A Convention of States. Term limits. Following the Constitution. NOT the one we have now. The pocket Constitution-the one the Founders signed. The Founders recognized that there would be a need to amend the new Constitution, and wisely chose not to leave the matter solely to Congress. They added a second clause to Article V of the United States Constitution providing that:
. . . on application by two-thirds of the state legislatures, Congress must call a convention of the states for the proposal of amendments, valid when ratified by the legislatures or by conventions in three-quarters of the states, as Congress chooses. Please sign the petition at http://www.cosaction.com/?recruiter_id=898217

[Tippecanoe]

No kidding. Hamilton would have just instituted another supreme ruler. The Atlantic side kingship.

[Tippecanoe]

Great post.
Regardless of how difficult it might be, we must work toward and accomplish the repeal of the 17th amendment as a part of the pack of amendments we need to turn this ship.

[Jacquerie]

Very good. The 17A has done incalculable damage. I think you'll have more observations regarding my follow-on blog post, Wanted: An Aristocratic Senate.

[gspurlock]

Term limits is not enough, it is an attempt to obstruct previous corruptions of the Constitution. I agree we need an Article V Convention. But, the amendments to make are: 1) Repeal the 16th Amendment, 2) Repeal the 17th Amendment and revoke the House rule limiting membership to 435 as unconstitutional. Those 3 things will restore the macro checks and balances between the People, the States and the Federal Government. Anything less will mean a continuation of this wasteful struggle between the People and the Federal Government. It will not relinquish its power willingly.