Posted on 04/17/2021 1:38:28 PM PDT by Jacquerie
From Charles de Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws, “When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils, but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles.”
There is a fundamental contradiction in the structure of our government that is responsible for the increasing turmoil we’ve witnessed these past few decades. Media pleas to “get along” and compromise reflect snowballing social and political tensions.
Unimaginable only a decade ago, our rulers in Washington, DC prepare for societal collapse. Rather than deal with the sickness that afflicts our republic, they respond to the symptoms, through billion round ammo purchases and administrative agency task forces to investigate, stymie, and prosecute political opponents.
Like a steam boiler with a disabled governor, the building pressure in a deeply divided American society threatens to blow up in racial, economic or police state violence. We see the collapse of society and free government all around and wonder what exactly happened, and what we can do about it.
The source of our long term ailment is simple to diagnose. In a free government, the component members of the republic are represented in the lawmaking body. The Framing generation knew this as Consent of the Governed. We must restore this maxim before it is too late.
In the American system, any proposed law that could garner the support of the House of Representatives and a Senate of the States was probably acceptable to the people and the states at large. This embrace of both the people and the states into our government served to reduce the possibility of infighting and social disorders among a fairly homogenous people.
The concept of free government wasn’t new in 1787. It is as old as the ancient Greek city-states in which the people participated directly in a government that acted on them. Likewise in the Roman republic, where patricians and plebs alike participated. Under the British system, the whole of society, the commons, lords and king had their place in crafting legislation. Our very own Articles of Confederation constituted free government because the institution which the government acted upon, the states, had representation in the government. Notice the people were not represented under the Articles of Confederation. It wasn’t necessary because the government did not act on the people.
Thus, in broad terms, these free government designs were stable systems, for no group was empowered to dominate and oppress another by virtue of the absence of that group from the government. Consent of the Governed.
That changed horribly in 1913. For the first time in history, an institution that had a legitimate and necessary place in free government, the states, walked away and subjected themselves to the caprice of the people. With passage of the 17th Amendment, the United States was transformed overnight from a federal republic into a large, unwieldy democratic republic that held arbitrary power over the states. While the Constitution still acted on the states through numerous clauses, the states were not represented. Despite popular representation in the House and Senate, free government for the states and the people they protected was gone. Not Consent of the Governed.
Booting the states from our system of government makes as much sense as booting the people. It makes no sense at all.
In order to remain a free government with passage of the 17th, every clause in the Constitution that affected the states should have been repealed. That’s right, every one. The states were no longer represented, and therefore the government had no legitimate power over them. Passage of the 17th left behind a federal constitution without federalism.
The cynic would immediately point out that removing these clauses is impossible. The people, states, and the government they created are intertwined in their duties, functions and responsibilities. That is correct. Remove all of the clauses that affect the states and the remaining contradictions would likely lead to violence and dissolution. IOW, what we face today.
The 17th Amendment was a blind alley to arbitrary, despotic government. Republican freedom cannot be restored until it is repealed. Consent of the Governed.
Article V to restore our federal republic.
The 17A triggered a cascade of stunning downwind consequences, perhaps only second to the immediate post-Civil War amendments. As opposed to the 13th – 15th Amendments which reset society, the 17A reset our republican governing form. Overnight, the 17A transformed the Framers’ exquisite compound democratic/federal structure into a democratic form deadly to republics.1
Why the 17th Amendment? What enormous forces convinced the people, states, and congress to trade a proven, stable governing form for an unstable and dangerous system?
[snip]
Once the late 19th and early 20th century progressives took up the cause, the public soon embraced the notion that the solution to the ills of democracy was ever-more democracy.4
What were these perceived ills? In the decades following the Civil War, people gradually associated indirect election of senators with an outmoded, plutocratic Constitution. By contrast, many regarded direct election with reform, faith in the people, and progress.5 Progressives’ complaints fell into four broad categories: legislative deadlock, bribery/corruption, populism/progressivism, and political forces at the state level.
[more]
I simply use Wilson as a date marker. It was the entire progressive movement at the time, which Wilson was a big part. I could go back to include T Roosevelt, but I rather demonize Wilson as it occurred during his presidency.
Go figure that a “progressive” like Wilson was our most racist President.
Your observation is correct. The 17th Amendment is the result of poisonous progressivism, but not Wilson. Wilson was not the protege of Harry Potter.
The 17th Amendment is due to the big government agitation of Theodore Roosevelt, who sent out his personal henchman Taft to get the whole ball rolling.(In a highly influential speech in June 1909) Roosevelt agitated for senatorial reform for “the direct election of senators” for years.
It’s in the Progressive Party Platform of 1912.
All of the blame for the Income Tax goes to the guy on Mount Rushmore. All of it.
There is a great deal of evidence to that. Wilson's crowning racist achievement was re-segregating the federal government. We need not look at his racist speech, only his actions. Compare that to LBJ, another racist progressive. Despite his racism, Republicans and the thrust of American forced him to sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Equality of all men moved forward even during the Johnson administration.
Correction, the inheritance tax is in the progressive party platform, not the income tax.
As this thread is originally about the 17th amendment, I also had that on my mind.
All of these issues TR agitated for. The death tax, the income tax, and the change to the senate.
It matters, because unlike earlier proposals, the Progressives had growing government and undermining the Constitution as a specific goal. Earlier generations were merely trying to bring consistency to senatorial election, and had no anti-Constitutional intent.
It's in their own writing, the progressives. They were DONE with the Constitution. And still are, BTW.
“I could go back to include T Roosevelt, but I rather demonize Wilson as it occurred during his presidency.”
So you know it’s not correct but misrepresent history for the sake of polemics.
Dinesh D’Souza and Beck specialize in this hackery, it’s a shame to see people who know better imitating it.
It doesn’t matter that Progressives advocated direct election when it had already been proposed in Congress for over 90 years, long before Progressives were even born.
Election by state legislatures had its own problems that were well known.
It was a policy no more written in stone than any other feature found in the Articles of Confederation.
The Philadelphia convention jettisoned state legislature election for the House. There’s no reason that the policy is any better when used for the Senate since either way each State gets equal representation in that chamber.
I get your point. It is not as nefarious as it may seem. I should not have written “(Wilson)” in my original post. Reread that without “(Wilson)”. I was just using Wilson as a dating mechanism and a reference progressive. Sloppy on my part.
<>Election by state legislatures had its own problems that were well known.<>
I addressed those problems in post #21.
Ping to PGA, PGalt and C210N.
<>The whole attempt to make a sacred cow out of State legislatures selecting Senators is ridiculous.<>
The Constitution acts on both the people and the states. Simple repbulican theory demands the states’ presence in the lawmaking body. Do you disagree?
“When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils, but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles.”
Reminder of your GREAT work, Rod. Thanks. BUMP-TO-THE-TRUTH
Dinesh D’Souza and Beck specialize in this hackery, it’s a shame to see people who know better imitating it."
In the realm of history, Beck is the singular high profile recognizable face that I am aware of anywhere with the guts to stand up to Theodore Roosevelt's cult of personality. It's a shame that he did so much self-immolation after his Fox show, we need someone new who will explore the years of 1900-1920.
I am not aware of anybody else who has done this. Everybody else cowers in fear and will not tell the truth about progressivism because TR's cult will be unleashed.
I've faced this cult myself. There is a very big cottage industry within progressivism that cannot have the statist truth be told about TR.
"The Philadelphia convention jettisoned state legislature election for the House."
This makes sense for a body that you want to be representative of the people. But the states need representation too. That used to be the Senate. Without their representation, the states have no teeth up in D.C.
The reality is that the 17th amendment abolishes the senate and gives us two Houses of Representatives. You seem to think this doesn't matter or is a mere footnote to another footnote downward further on the page. Structure matters and progressives have always understood this better than most, they constantly talk about structure in their writings. That the progressives did not want to hear from the states anymore tells you everything you need to know about the 17th.
Of all forums, Free Republic, it’s a shame at how difficult it is at times to sell first principles.
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.