The Axis of Evil ... ;o)
Posted on 05/06/2009 2:28:07 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The States still have the power and the means to bring the Federal Government into compliance with the intent of the Founders, but to do so they must be willing to kill the Sacred Cow of American politics - democracy.
Mostly unheralded and unknown, the Founding Fathers feared and rejected it.
Examination of Farrand's Records, (The minutes and journal of the 1787 convention) clearly reveals the Founders' intent. For instance:
Gerry, "The evils we experience (in the confederation) flow from an excess of democracy."
Madison describing Randolph: "the General Object (of the Convention) was to find a cure for the evils under which the U.S. laboured; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy."
Writing in Humanitas, Vol IX, No 2, C. H. Hoebeke, correctly describes the attitude and objective of the delegates as, "Having in the short span of eleven years experienced the violent swing of the political pendulum from abusive monarchy to abusive majoritarianism, and in the process discovered that life, liberty, and property were no more secure under the latter than they had been under the former, the Constitution's framers saw the will of the people as a force to be restrained and refined, not unleashed and encouraged."
Their only concession to election by the people is the House of Representatives.
Election of the President would be by a slate of electors appointed by the State Legislatures, two steps removed from popular election.
The Senate was to be the lynchpin of our protection. The Senators, appointed by the State Legislatures would be a body of deliberative Statesmen, our guardians, immune to the whims of popular causes. In Farrand's Records, we find:
Madison: "It (the Senate) would keep up the balance and restrain, if possible, the fury of Democracy."
Randolph: "The object of this 2nd branch (Senate) is to control the democratic branch of the National Legislature."
In Federalist No. 63, (author unknown) believed to be Hamilton or Madison, in reference to the Senate, wrote, ". . . .there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?"
As perfect as the Constitution was, there was a weak link, the poison pill of democracy lurked in the future. All of the State Legislatures were and still are products of democracy, popular election. This would prove to be our undoing. When the Populists mounted a campaign to undo what the Founding Fathers had done, they exploited this point of vulnerability.
Starting in the 1820s, massive public campaigns convinced the State Legislators, dependent on the people for reelection, to delegate their power to appoint the Presidential electors to popular election by the people. This prompted Alexis de Tocqueville to remark that the "American republics will be obliged more frequently to introduce the plan of election by an elected body into their system of representation, or run the risk of perishing miserably on the shoals of democracy."
Later in the 19th Century, the Populists manipulated the appointment process of Senators into a state of near chaos. In 1913 a new batch of legislators dependent on the people for reelection bowed once again to popular demand and turned the selection of Senators over to popular election when they ratified the 17th Amendment.
It didn't happen instantly, but over the span of a few years the allegiance of the Senators shifted to the Washington power structure and there is where it resides to this day.
The transition was complete. The nation became and still is a democracy, exactly what the Founding Fathers tried to prevent. What we have, the outward cause of the Tea Parties and Sovereignty Resolutions, is exactly what they wanted to thwart and should be proof enough of their wisdom,
The State Legislatures must do three things to turn this around and they are the only ones who can do it.
1. Take back the power to appoint the Presidential electors. A majority vote in the legislature is all it will take to cancel the popular presidential elections, primary and general. It should be done now but with a delayed effective date - no earlier than February 1, 2013 to show it is not directed at the incumbent.
2. The Legislatures must come together as a cohesive unit to draft the amendment necessary to repeal the 17th Amendment. As a united group they send it to Congress with a request to enact and return it to the States for ratification. If Congress fails to or refuses to act, go to court, contending that submittal of an identical amendment by more than three fourths of the States constitutes a de facto ratification. Therefore, the court should order the Archives to accept and process it as such. The Populist lawyers will say this is not possible, because the States will not have standing to support the action. This, however, will not be a problem. Standing is virtually assured.
3. Immediately do whatever is necessary within each State to restructure the Legislature to be in line with the original configuration of Congress. House of Representatives? Popular election. The Senates? Each County will have one Senator who is appointed by the County Commission. The purpose of this is three fold.
First: It demonstrates their willingness to do for themselves what they demand of Congress.
Second: It affords their citizens a higher degree of protection from them. Congress does not have an exclusive on legislative tyranny.
Third: It helps prevent the same mistake by future legislators.
This will do it if the State Legislatures have the backbone and determination to see it through. Otherwise, the rocky "shoals of democracy" await us.
Suppose: (1)Obama places all US military forces under U.N. command, effective immediately; and (2)Obama brings forth his "Civilian Security Force", some 750,000 well-armed thugs strong, ready, willing and able to respond to Obama's every whim, and beholden to him and not the Constitution.
Further, upon the visible signs (not actual action and response, but merely the signs of such) of states actually attempting this type of thing, Obama not only calls upon and deploys his "Security Force", but turns to the U.N. for military support to quell a potential uprising, and - lo and behold! - the U.N. responds by sending in troops of Middle Eastern and Chinese ethnicity.
There are a lot of scenarios that can flow from such a hypothetical, and none of them are good.
I pray it never comes to this, but I look to the future, such as it is, and can see little that gives me hope and encouragement that we can avoid real trouble.
'Course, maybe I'm just having an off-day....
CA....
And maybe you're not. With this administration anything is possible. I was chastised and had the foil hat comments thrown at me two years ago for saying our government was out of control. So your scenario may be spot on but too true for some shallow thinkers to grasp.
The same could be said for the 50 states of the United States.
I’ve been saying this for years.
for later reading
There is no decision addressing the same subject at the federal level. However, the logic at the federal level is the same as at the state level. The power to convene a Convention belongs to a specified authority. At the federal level, that is the state legislatures. And since 1793, no state has EVER called for a general convention. All calls have been for limited conventions on specified subjects.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, "Homeland Security's Unsecure Secretary"
Latest article, "Ben Franklin (Congressman Billybob) at Knoxville Tea Party"
I wonder why they don't simply recommend following Article 5.
bump
Thanks for the explanation. Since the federales use our Constitution to wipe their feet on anyway, it follows that their interest in any kind of re-do is probably not that high. I suppose the REAL question is, given the context of a chronically out of control feral government, would 2/3 of the States be concerned enough about repealing the 17th to get a movement started? Seems to me that even the "pink" states would have an interest in doing this, but whaddaya I know...
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.