Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The 17th Amendment and Republican Freedom

Posted on 04/08/2013 12:00:11 PM PDT by Jacquerie

Happy Anniversary! Today marks 100 years of the 17th Amendment.

To Freepers, our statist government is a daily “fingernails across the chalkboard” experience. What will the likes of Senators Schumer and Durbin or Representatives Hoyer, Lee and Pelosi try to pull next? Why did our national government morph from one designed to protect our freedoms into one that promises increasing oppression? More to the point, why did the federal government generally remain within its Constitutional bounds prior to WWI and not thereafter?

Thank the 17th Amendment.

It fundamentally altered the Constitution; it pulled the keystone from the arch of our Framers’ structure. The structure upon which our freedoms depend is not a Bill of Rights as many believe; it was and remains the separation of powers. That separation began with a division of power between the States and Federal government, not with the division of legislative, judicial and executive departments within the Federal government.

In Federalist 51, James Madison briefly contrasted the structure of ancient, simple republics and our new compound republic. As opposed to simple republics, in which the people granted power to a single government, in our Constitution power was first divided between the States and Federal governments. To quote Madison, “Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same that each will be controlled by itself.” By “different governments,” Madison meant the States and new federal government.

Republican freedoms are not only threatened by oppression from rulers; the greater threat resides within the people themselves. Madison described this democracy as the tyranny of the majority: “If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.” One method to combat majoritarian tyranny was “by creating a will in the community independent of the majority . . .” A Senate representing the States provided Madison’s independent “will.” Our current Senate structure merely invites a republic destroying majoritarianism which, from their study of history, our Framers sought to avoid.

Consider the guarantees in our Bill of Rights. How many remain in force? When did the national (it has not been federal for 100 years) government gather its full steam assault on them? It began when the structural protection previously provided by the States was removed. Without the institutional means to secure our rights, provided by the States, the Bill of Rights became but unenforceable parchment barriers to consolidated government made possible by the 17th.


TOPICS: History; Reference
KEYWORDS: 17th; 17thamendment; constitution; diversion; ntsa; seventeenth; sideshow; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 last
To: Political Junkie Too
Man, that was good. It is all possible. We can pull a divide and conquer strategy on them as they continually do to us. I keep going back to Obamacare. It is more unpopular than ever and may be the perfect foil to call for going back to the original structure. More than half of the states formally opposed in court. As for Jim Crow, a history lesson will take care of that . . . if of course, there is time once our backs are against the wall.

I'm reading a Federalist Pamphlet from April 1788. Among other topics, the author spent a page going over the history of English rights and how they were reluctantly granted by Princes. No written constitution of course, but the people carved out rights from a sea of powers belonging to the sovereign, the King. This pamphlet was designed for the average reader of the time and given wide distribution in Virginia. It would flop as a post at FreeRepublic and be derided by any non-conservative as reactionary, irrelevant . . . dead white men, etc. My larger point is that I fear we have become too corrupted to understand what we lost and why we must return to federal and republican government.

41 posted on 04/09/2013 2:34:17 PM PDT by Jacquerie (How few were left who had seen the republic! - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Here's another interesting read from 2007 that began with a posting of a WSJ article from James Taranto, The People's Senate. The discussion that followed was very robust.

-PJ

42 posted on 04/10/2013 10:05:04 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

As horrible as the 17th Amendment is, I think the 16th is worse. it is a tough call as to which sucks more.


43 posted on 04/10/2013 10:08:58 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Yeah, both are stinkaroo. The progs hit us hard a hundred years ago. They unfortunately illustrate the people's confidence in the Framers wasn't that strong, or that they knew better, or just believed Leftist BS fed them. Also, IIRC, there was a lot of hostility built up against the super wealthy “robber barons” and the income tax was sold as a means to screw them.
44 posted on 04/10/2013 1:14:17 PM PDT by Jacquerie (How few were left who had seen the republic! - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Yeah, both are stinkaroo. The progs hit us hard a hundred years ago. They unfortunately illustrate the people's confidence in the Framers wasn't that strong, or that they knew better, or just believed Leftist BS fed them. Also, IIRC, there was a lot of hostility built up against the super wealthy “robber barons” and the income tax was sold as a means to screw them.
45 posted on 04/10/2013 1:14:49 PM PDT by Jacquerie (How few were left who had seen the republic! - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
Great post. You beat me by six years. The original WSJ source is inop, but I got the point. You put up better with silly snark than I would have. I was somewhat surprised by the misperceptions of our Framing, . . . House of Lords . . . sheesh.

You may wish to send your links to this Article V conference late this month at http://www.ucfavconference.org/

46 posted on 04/10/2013 1:29:28 PM PDT by Jacquerie (How few were left who had seen the republic! - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
You put up better with silly snark than I would have.

Yeah. I reread the post from February 2013 between you and the Field Marshal. I think I held my own then, too.

-PJ

47 posted on 04/10/2013 4:36:20 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson