Posted on 04/07/2017 1:57:56 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Our once Free Republic continues to reel from a one hundred and four-year-old mistake: the 17th Amendment. Pardon me if I don’t celebrate tomorrow’s anniversary.
Republican theory demands the consent of the governed. From ancient Greece, republican Rome, Saxon Germany, and the English kingdom from which we declared our Independence, the component members of their societies had a place at the lawmaking table. Greek ecclesia, Roman tribunes and senators, Saxon Micklegemots, English commons, lords and king, encompassed the totality of their societies. By this, the consent of the governed was present in every law.
Unlike simpler Greek or Saxon societies which met in single-house democratic assemblies to craft their laws, the vast American Republic required representation of an additional component member, the states. Like the people, the states preceded the Union. Also like the people, the states relinquished some powers in exchange for legislative representation. Out of necessity, our republic was a compound form; it featured both democratic and federal elements.
It could be no other way, for the states would have never subjected themselves to a government in which they were not represented. Until the 17th Amendment, no republic in history denied the lawmaking consent of a component member. Since 1913, the states have been subjected to arbitrary, despotic rule – tyranny. While the Constitution and subsequent laws and court rulings still act on the states, the states have no say in the government of their creation. Left in the wake of the 17A is federalism without a federal government!
Post-17A, the senate is an institution whose foundation cannot support its purposes. Popularly derived bodies are not known for their caution and circumspection. Instead of reflecting the distinct interests of the various states, senators are no more than at-large politicians with extended terms . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at articlevblog.com ...
.
“One man, one vote” is contrary to the promise of a “Republican” form of government.
Our constitution clearly prohibits “democracy” as a form of governance. We are supposed to be protected from the tyranny of democracy.
.
I haven’t done a detailed study. But from what I have picked up, there was a tremendous wave of populism that swept the country in the late 19th century. Lots of violence as Labor took on Owners in manufacturing and mining. William Jennings Bryan demagogued and stoked the fires. The people were simultaneously told that more democracy was the answer to a corrupt senate, while a young academic, who thought the Declaration and Constitution were silly, named Woodrow Wilson sold the snake-oil of the administrative state that terrorizes us today.
<>The election of state legislators who then appointed US senators indeed was a check and balance of popular wind driven shift of power in the US gov. To our chagrin.<>
That’s why the Framers’ cautiousness (two per state, not recallable, salaries paid by fed gov) with the senate should be done away with. Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments would super-federalize the government and provided excellent state level checks on congress and the scotus.
George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, and Patrick Henry were all over the inadequacy of representation in the House. From what I’ve read, by Herbert Storing and Cecilia Kenyon, the Anti-Federalists may have prevailed if they had concentrated their criticism on a House of Reps they were sure would become aristocratic. With a ratio of Reps to people today at over 1:720,000, they were right.
It would eliminate the class of individuals who are professional politicians. You know, the ones who put their own interests ahead of the good of the state or nation.
Shouldn't the State Legislatures be the ones that determine whether this is true? I mean, we are doing this BECAUSE the States are being denied their rights to representation (according to original intent). Why should the Federal Government then be allowed to dictate how often a specific person is allowed to represent their State? If the Legislature is happy with the representation of the State's interests there should be no other limitation.
Because they (the legislature) are under no threat of removal unless they tick off enough of their constituents, they are looking out for themselves as much as the senators are. Pro politicians supporting pro politicians.
So, I (or a State) am (is) not entitled to the representative that I (they) feel is best qualified to represent my (their) interests?
Since, according to your position, neither the State nor the Federal Legislatures can be trusted to look out for our interests, why have them at all?
Sorry, you didn’t convince me.
And I would argue that it is an essential element of a republican form of government and, as such, is required by Art IV. Section 4, to wit, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government, ..."
Well, if you feel that it is okay to deny me the representation that I feel is best for my interests based on some arbitrary criteria, then I doubt seriously if we can agree on anything. Term limits were, are, and always will be anathema to free choice of representation in our republic. It was wrong to allow them for the President. It is just as wrong to introduce them for the Senate / House. It denies the people / state the representation they want.
FWIW - if we limit the terms, the party will STILL reserve the right to anoint a follower so the system remains as corrupt as it is now. And, IIRC, the problem that was to be solved by the 17th was NOT that Senators were serving too long, but that states were going without representation / there was too much vote buying. Term Limits will not resolve that problem.
So, you’re OK with lawyers who could make half a million a year without breaking a sweat running for a $170k a year job, staying 20-30 years and retiring wealthier than they would have been on the half mil? Can anything but corruption account for that?
And the longer they “serve”, the more detached they become from real life. You know, the things we have to deal with every day.
None of this would be a problem if only people of good character ran for office. But good luck with that!
OK, JimRed, down off the soapbox! Step away from the keyboard!
You are right. Check out the link in #21.
There is no right to be a rep, senator, prez, etc.
If experience shows that the servants of the people soon take on the attributes of masters, then reason compels us to limit their terms in office.
I agree and examined your point at length in the link to #21.
To learn from history, we need to think both
Ideology and
Strategy and tactics.
Too many ideologues ignore strategy and tactics.
They think they should get affirmative action just because they are right and pure and on the side of God.
The reality is that the right and pure and Godly don’t always get affirmative action. They have to work hard and work smart.
In politics we rarely work hard. It is even more rare for conservatives to work smart.... because we think we deserve affirmative action for who we are.
It is an idea, if you feel it is ok to deny me the basic right to express ideas, maybe you would be happier living in North Korea.
Use the 5th to strike down the 17th, and amend the 14th.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Thank you Jacquerie fory your reply.
George Washington refused to be involved in the debate over the constitution except over one issue. They asked him his opinion about whether the ratio of representation should be one to 50,000 or one to 30,000 and he unequivocally stated that it must be one representative for every 30,000 persons!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.