Replies

Ping! The thread has been posted.

Earlier threads:

Bumped and Bookmarked

* - Original post
+ - My comment

*66 The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things so far as they are objects of lawful government.

+The founding fathers had foresight into today’s problems. A national government, which we (almost, since the Seventeenth Amendment) have today has infinite power over it’s citizens. That is, while the staggered election of the House, Senate and President slows down the process, they can contrive together, with the appointed (and therefore supplicant) supreme court, “to do almost anything”. It was the president, oddly enough, elected popularly but in parallel with the popular legislature, who was supposed to be a check on the congress in defense of individual rights.

*13 If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.

*That is a rather broad definition to be sure, but within is contained the topic of this essay and its immediate successor: does this new government derive its powers from the people, and is it in a practical fashion subject to their preferences? What is, in simple terms, the form of this new government?

*But it turns out that Madison has not let go of precedent at all. The answer, says Madison, is in both the principles and the precedents, but not the precedents found in Venice, Geneva or London; both principle and precedent are to be found within the already written constitutions of the states.

+I forget who, maybe it was Madison, who said that we had 13x11 = 143 years of experience with representative government and the constitution was derived from that experience. The problem of course was that the experience was too short. No one would have imagined one party rule from 1933 to 1994 in the popular legislature and the effect that would have.

*Questions:
*How have the standing army, the federal bureaucracy, and the presidency and federal court system perverted this balance? What possible solutions are there to redress the balance?

+Well the founders found the solution, didn’t they? There is no possible solution to a people that choose one party rule unless they are able to also choose a parallel government that counters that one party. They have done just that in the presidency. Republican Presidents have come along and chosen Justices that counter the Democratic Party’s legislature. Unfortunately, those choices have been tempered by the Senate which is now directly chosen by the people. The best (or worst) example of this is Justice Souter. He never should have been appointed per the intents of the framers of the constitution.

•The act of establishing the Constitution is federal.

This is hogwash. The method of establishment is meaningless. It is the OPERATION of the gubmint that matters, and it is clearly national, which was his intent all along.