Posted on 02/15/2010 7:43:28 AM PST by Publius
Ping! The thread has been posted.
Earlier threads:
FReeper Book Club: The Debate over the Constitution
5 Oct 1787, Centinel #1
6 Oct 1787, James Wilson’s Speech at the State House
8 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #1
9 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #2
Ping! The thread has been posted.
Earlier threads:
FReeper Book Club: The Debate over the Constitution
5 Oct 1787, Centinel #1
6 Oct 1787, James Wilson’s Speech at the State House
8 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #1
9 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #2
Congressman Billybob
and also the next line -
18 Many instances can be produced in which the people have voluntarily increased the powers of their rulers, but few if any in which rulers have willingly abridged their authority.
Throughout history dynasties have fallen with the death of their leaders or their bloodlines. Death, being the great equalizer, is a weakness inherent in the rulers.
In an effort to ease the transition of powers upon death, schemes of inheritance have been established, usually following a known formula intended to reduce the chance for power struggles at such a vulnerable time.
His argument is that the power only flows in one direction without violent conflict. From the people to the rulers. I think we need to understand that the expansion can continue to non appointed rulers if they are treated as a commodity to be traded and not as a revocable trust.
I like the writings of Brutus. I’m printing it up and headed for a corner of a coffee shop.
Great work, Publius and Billthedrill (who is either a Dentist, a Marine DI, or Oil man?).
I believe he was right because the caliber of the vote has been diluted and eroded. I can't think of an instance where a people who have consented to be governed have wrested power from the hands of their governors without violence. Those in power no longer fear the caliber of the ballot.
At 103, he follows up on 71, 84, 87 and 93 by arguing that a country that is too large will be inhabited by people who don’t know their rulers. In 110, he argues that in such a situation, the officers of government will elevate themselves above the people. This has happened. What would have prevented this?
Constitutional term limits. Requirement to live in and govern from their districts. Compensation determined and paid only by their constituents. Campaigns paid for with contributions from their districts only.
You have hit on something. Public office has not necessarily been cheapened, but perhaps made too remuneritive -- but not in the way the Framers imagined. This is the revolving door between politics and lobbying in which everything is for sale to those with the money.
Almost the exact words of Patrick Henry, who went through the same experience as Yates.
You have written a great slogan or tagline. There is a school of thought that the end of stakeholder franchise in the 1820's marked the end of an enlightened electorate.
I'd like to explore the rest of your reply a sentence at a time.
Constitutional term limits.
Rejected at the Constitutional Convention because of a perceived need for institutional memory.
Requirement to live in and govern from their districts.
Are you suggesting a Virtual Congress conducted on the Internet? I find that idea seductive, possibly even insurance against a terrorist or enemy strike.
Compensation determined and paid only by their constituents.
This is interesting, and it's the first time I've ever seen anyone suggest it.
Campaigns paid for with contributions from their districts only.
Perhaps tricky to enforce when money is no more than bits and bytes on a computer, but it's another interesting idea.
Institutional memory should be in the minds of an enlightened electorate.
I am indeed suggesting a Virtual Congress conducted on the Internet in clear view of the voters.
I think the separate states should be able to take control over the other items mentioned. (That is, if obama’s council of governors has not already destroyed any possibility.)
This would mean that there could be more than 435 congresscritters. Rather than have one per every 30,000 people, a larger number could be chosen that would not be unwieldy but would be more representative.
98 A free republic will never keep a standing army to execute its laws.
Even with the Third amendment, and the Posse Comitatus Act, this current White House demands close scrutiny.
5.56mm
I always get a smile when philosophical types reminisce the ancient Greek and Roman republics. Both of these had numerous faults severely attacking liberty. The most obvious was slavery; next was the fact that women in Athens were not citizens, and they fared only a little better in Rome. Senatus y Populus Que Romanus: S.P.Q.R., the Roman banner, made it clear who was intended to benefit from the republic. That is, or course, if you were a citizen of the republic. If you weren’t, too bad.
In 94, he observes that a large legislative body would be unable to pass laws quickly. If only that was the case. Knee-jerk legislative responses are the norm and Saul Alinsky wrote of exploiting the practice. Never let a crisis go to waste. Laws passed during a crisis have far reaching effects that were not considered in the heat of hte moment. In the past few years, we’ve had to force the government to retard the debates on immigration, cap and trade, and health insurance. A government with that much power should not act quickly.
The federal courts supported the people here for over a century, until they were able to revise the needs of the people from liberty to welfare. It wasn’t the power of taxation that did it. It was the commerce clause. Nobody saw that one coming.
People have certainly fought back, and won. Right to carry laws and castle doctrine laws are becoming the norm after decades of oppression. The Freedom of Information Act is often viewed as a liberal cause, but it isn’t. Government had to be forced to disclose its methods. I hope that in my lifetime, the feds will be put in their place. It’s happening very slowly, but it is happening. The inertia of such a vast country resists change. We’ll just have to push harder.
btt
Bttt!
“Campaigns paid for with contributions from their districts only.”
I have been advocating this for quite a while and agree that only those living in a district should be able to contribute to a campaign. I would even restrict it further to individuals.
On the issue of compensation, I hve thought about requiring the use of health and retirement plans that are used by their States employees. I like your idea of including all compensation. I personally don’t think there should be a retirement plan. It is not a job in the normal sense.
The Virtual Legislature is an interesting idea that would take the members of Congress away somewhat from each other and outside influences and more importantly make them available to their constituents. Would this virtual legislature open us up to voting fraud that even the members couldn’t control?
“a larger number could be chosen that would not be unwieldy but would be more representative.”
Would we then begin to fear the tyranny of the masses and act with haste and not deliberation?
It would be only one small step further to direct voting by the population. James Carville would rejoice.
I like this Brutus. Where was he when I studied History?
A virtual legislator’s vote would publicly cast and tabulated as it is now. Where do you see the opportunity for fraud?
Specifically referring to -
51 Suppose the legislature of a state should pass a law to raise money to support their government and pay the state debt, may the Congress repeal this law because it may prevent the collection of a tax which they may think proper and necessary to lay to provide for the general welfare of the United States?
How long will it take the Federal Government to realize that taxation on a local level has an effect on interstate commerce? What would be the result?
Many people talk about the government taxes as if local state and federal are one and the same. Their perception is understandable given the convenience of 'payroll deduction' from their paychecks and as they see it the bottom line is, well, the bottom line. They are poorer and the government just got richer. At what point will the people say enough is enough?
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.