Posted on 02/15/2010 7:43:28 AM PST by Publius
“Where do you see the opportunity for fraud?”
I guess it’s my suspicious nature. With today’s politicians I can’t help it. There have been problems with votes in our legislature in the past but thinking about it if properly implemented this may be more secure. I’ll have to cogitate on it.
“But remember, when the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again but by force. “
We are here.
Mark for later.
What fascinates me most about men such as Yates is not only their knowledge of theory, but also their great understanding of human nature.
110, The easy answer is “term limits.” The problem with that answer is the assumption all power resides with elected officials.
This is far from true. The amount of power that resides in various government agencies is phenomenal. I would go so far to say that at least one of them, BATF, is a rogue agency. The EPA is very close to being a rogue agency too.
The above listed bureaucratic monstrosities blatantly usurp power that is specifically reserved to Congress.
At least with politicians, death will finally remove even the most egregious offender. Government bureaucracies tend to live forever.
If there was one thing that should have been at least severely limited, it was governments ability to create agencies.
End the wittholding of taxes from people's paychecks, and it starts the following April 15.
Federal agencies are part of the Executive branch, created by Congress for the purpose of enforcing federal regulations. But according to the Constitution, there are only 3 federal crimes: treason, piracy and counterfeiting. All those other 10,000 federal crimes are unconstitutional.
Curtailing federal agencies would require curtailing federal crimes, which would require curtailing the purview of the federal government.
You have to go to the source.
Agreed.
Unfortunately the power to withhold income taxes from a paycheck would likely be very difficult to repeal.
17 But remember, when the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again but by force.
A more likely scenario is a race between taxing authorities for that last drop of blood. As a result of such a high total tax rate, people will quite literally not be able to afford to work. If that happened I could see where the Federal Government would step in and appropriate all tax revenue for 'the good of the nation'. The states will remain but at the pleasure of the Federal Government.
If the runaway spending continues, I think this scenario is not only possible but probable.
Hey Billybob,
OT but how are your ‘critters re-elect numbers?
Do you see any chance of a pick up?
Beginning in 77:
77 In a free republic, although all laws are derived from the consent of the people, yet the people do not declare their consent by themselves in person, but by representatives chosen by them who are supposed to know the minds of their constituents and to be possessed of integrity to declare this mind.
78 In every free government the people must give their assent to the laws by which they are governed.
The legitimacy of the rulers' powers come from the consent of the governed...
81 If the people are to give their assent to the laws by persons chosen and appointed by them, the manner of the choice and the number chosen must be such as to possess, be disposed, and consequently qualified to declare the sentiments of the people; for if they do not know or are not disposed to speak the sentiments of the people, the people do not govern, but the sovereignty is in a few.
...but when the chosen representatives willfully ignore the desires of the people, the people no longer govern. This is seen in the current debate over heath care reform. The public overwhelmingly rejects the current Congressional scheme, but the Congress is using every trick in the book to force this legislation anyway. One has to ask in whose interests Congress is acting? It remains to be seen whether the people can reclaim control over Congress at the ballot box.
The second theme is that of diversity.
Beginning in 86 and concluding in 93, Yates describes the diverse nature of the United States.
93 The laws and customs of the several states are in many respects very diverse, and in some opposite; each would be in favor of its own interests and customs, and of consequence a legislature, formed of representatives from the respective parts, would not only be too numerous to act with any care or decision, but would be composed of such heterogenous and discordant principles as would constantly be contending with each other.
In 94, Yates concludes that this diversity will slow down the ability of the federal government to pass laws promptly.
94 The laws cannot be executed in a republic of an extent equal to that of the United States with promptitude.
I see this issue differently.
From 90 to 93, Yates observes that the states formed around common value systems inherent in their geographic boundaries, climate-inducing norms, and probably, the motives of their original settlers. What has happened is that the federal government has forced homogeneity on the states.
We see this today in abortion laws, in gay marriage laws, in religion and church/state laws, etc. Where the states were governments of like-minded people, today a single individual or group can use the federal courts and/or legislative lobbying to impose their values and beliefs on the entire nation, invalidating local laws and customs that evolved over the centuries in their respective regions.
Here in California, the proposition process repeatedly results in the people voting for laws and state Constitutional amendments that are quickly overturned in a federal court by the losing side. We've seen national movements to remove bible images from courts in one state result in removing a cross symbol for the California great seal, despite the cross representing the historic nature of the Spanish missions in the forming of the state.
Yates was right that the federal system would eventually dissolve the power of state governments, but it also destroyed the local and regional diversity and identity that each state enjoyed.
I can't say that things would be better or worse if state diversity was retained over the centuries. I do wonder what North America would be like if this continent ended up balkanized into 50 antagonistic entities the way much of Europe evolved.
-PJ
There is an element of truth in that. But natural popular migrations have had the same effect.
The old Vermont would not have considered a gay marriage law, but when the state was flooded by New Yorkers fleeing that state's problems, they took their attitudes to Vermont.
The "black plate people" who migrated from Michigan to Texas 30 years ago did much the same.
The "Californicators" who flooded Washington and Idaho had the same effect on those states.
Much of "the New South" comes form Northerners who moved to the Sunbelt and brought their attitudes with them.
It's a mixture of both.
LOL! No, merely a poor sap who did not reflect sufficiently on how long this place might be around when he picked a nom de FReep out of thin air. The reference in my nick is to the President of the time's sexual proclivities. Young FReepers, let this be a lesson to you...choose wisely...BtD chose...poooooorly...
A BTT on a brief check-in before carping that old diem. The anti-Federalist sentiments are beginning to coalesce around several themes - that the government to be will be too powerful and submerge those of the States, that the government cannot be powerful enough to govern all that territory without becoming a despotism, unresponsive to the people, or both, and that such innovations as a standing army will be temptations toward that same end of autocratic behavior.
It will be easy enough to see certain modern characteristics of government as validating these sentiments, which to a degree they do. It will be far less easy to imagine what improvements might have been made in the original document to avoid them. It will be easy enough to say that we need to return to the original interpretation of this remarkable plan. It will be less easy to understand that the original interpretation did, in fact, give way to its grotesquely transformed modern version due to real internal deficiencies or conflicts. Some of these were foreseen, some perhaps inevitable, and some may still be recoverable.
Coming to the fore is the necessity, and the disadvantages, of a federal Bill of Rights. These seem so integral to the Constitution now that it takes some effort to picture them truly as Amendments. Would we have been better off without them? That debate is about to rage.
How has mass migration changed regions in the 18th and 19th centuries? Didn't the unpopulated western territories form around like-minded ethnic settlers dominating different regions? Didn't foreigners emigrating from Europe in the early 20th century settle in cities and neighborhoods already dominated by their fellow nationals?
It seems to me that the second half of the 20th century was Americans relocating to other regions and changing those regions, rather than outsiders relocating and then assimilating.
-PJ
Correct. Look at New Hampshire voting for Obama, Vermont going for gay marriage and Washington state going so "green" it's impossible to do business.
Bookmark
I am of the mind that no matter what the form of government, it will eventually move left of its foundation unless it has a continuing system of self-cleansing.
I have supported our Constitution for some time because I believe that it was the best form of government ever developed - - that the faults were more those of management than design.
Now I do have a criticism: The constitution should have stayed as it was, but within its articles should have been sunlight and sunset provisions that would be applied to all laws and proposals.
Any tax raise....sunset after 10 years. Any bureau, sunset after ten years. Any finished legal proposal would have to wait two weeks for a vote.
We still need these tools. It is never too late.
Worthy of a tagline.
Henry’s reversal seemed to be far greater than Yates.
Publius, Billthedrill, were you ever going to print up this series?
LM
We found that only one agent can handle this kind of book, and his plate was full. We’re at a loss to find a publisher.
Have you considered self-publishing? I’m proficient in InDesign. I can help.
Considering all the other books dedicated to the same subject, and considering the low rate of return on our first book, it’s unlikely to be worth our effort. BtD indicated that what we’ve written so far would be just the beginning of a major research effort. The fact that we lack credentials in history would weigh against the entire effort.
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.