Posted on 10/18/2013 1:53:17 PM PDT by Jacquerie
The solution to America’s political problems reside within the American tradition. The answer is right in front of our noses.
First, if one thinks, as the dimwitted commentariat does, that the problem is bickering between the two parties, the answer is simple. Eliminate political opposition. Destroy one of the belligerents, and the party left standing will rule without discord. That is Obama’s operandi, and he is well on his way to establishing de facto one party rule.
OTOH, patriotic Americans see the problem as an undivided government in Washington DC rapidly eroding freedom. Our Fabulous Framers knew that who one elects is irrelevant to the larger problem of keeping all power out of the hands of a single government. Recall James Madison’s definition of tyranny as the holding of all powers, legislative, executive and judicial in the same hands, whether by one person, a few, or many and regardless of whether the hands were appointed or elected. This separation of powers theory is the bedrock, the foundation of secured rights. When power is divided, tyranny is impossible. Duh.
Undivided power inevitably leads to undivided tyranny. Isn’t that what we have? The three branches have, for all practical purposes, folded into one self-supporting mass. A president, a few hundred legislators, and nine judges are quite comfortable pushing us around and imposing, with little fear of retribution, their social justice theories on over three hundred million people.
But, according to so many at FreeRepublic, if we just elect virtuous politicians, all will be well. Despite our hundred year experience with popular elections to both the House and Senate, these well-meaning, concerned freepers imagine a Utopian, Platonic paradise where elected, wise philosophers administer a benevolent government that limits itself to enumerated powers, and resists popular demands for more goodies. Equating elections with freedom is a big hurdle for many freepers to overcome. These otherwise intelligent folks should refer to Einstein’s definition of insanity.
So, where is the answer? It is within our proven American tradition. Divide power once again between the national government and states. Restore the all-important vertical separation of powers through a return to federalism. Renew our republic; repeal the 17th Amendment.
Federalism Ping!
I could get behind that!
This chart shows the margin of victory from the last election. I've seen other charts like this that show the actual votes. This one shows the differences.
-PJ
Here's a view of total votes.
-PJ
But that’s why the Senate has 2 per state, right? What I think is the solution is the Catholic teaching of Subsidiarity, which I learned about recently: That which can be done locally should be done locally, and tasks passed UP only as they cannot be done at the local level. (NOT the original wording).
Hence, schools should be controlled locally. The parents MUST be involved in their children’s education. Etc. I cannot stand some do-gooder in the state legislature or in DC telling me - what kind of dishwasher soap to use, or what kind of bags I can get groceries in, or what kind of TP I have to use.
I am sick to death of that kind of sticky-tar ‘help.’ Paid for by MY taxdollars by those who are supposed to be working FOR me.
My point being...
with the 17th amendment in place,
the states are no longer represented.
It is all about “the people”.
There are no “red states” and “blue states”.
The states don’t matter anymore.
The answer is eliminate the opposition. This is exactly what the republican party is trying to do. In cahoots with the democrats. Their “opposition” is the Tea Party.
I will be surprised if Ted Cruz does not bide his time for the proper moment to announce his learned support for an Article V amendment convention to repeal the 17th.
Without outside stimuli all governments start off a ideological anarchy and end up a fascist totalitarianism.
It’s called ‘Mission Creep’.
Having 3 branches of separate but equal government (the triumvirate), each one selected to be representative from different segments of society and placed at odds with each other. Was designed to impede that creep — if not ideologically rid us of it completely.
When the 17th amendment was passed, it was thought to strengthen the hand of the people — because the people elect Senators right? And probably for a time it actually did, until continued industrialization, then the computer age with instant communications, instant money transfer transitioned the Senate — representatives of the states from which they came, to the Senate — a body of 100 people who represent the combined 50 states.
This is more executive, so the end result is the 17th shaved a little power from the legislature and by proximity the judicial (through advice and consent) and gave it to the Executive. Which makes us susceptible to a tyrannical party.
You make the situation far too complex.
Our framers knew exactly what they were doing when they create the two houses of congress, and what would happen if congress depended on popular elections.
And it will only get worse if the National Popular Vote movment makes more progress. Then you will see those spikes in the few largest cities overwhelm the total votes in several states combined.
At least for now, the Electoral College prevents extreme vote tallies from leaking over into other states. A win by one vote in California is the same as a win by 1 million votes. With a National Popular Vote, all of those extra votes will count in every state in the compact, and therefore in every state in the nation.
-PJ
I like my explanation better and I don’t subscribe to the infallible theory about our founders.
I will simply repeat what the Gipper said:
“I will vote for the most conservative republican who can GET ELECTED”.
Which means not necessarily the most conservative candidate in a primary, but some one who can get elected in general.
Only thing which can change the elite gov’t from DC is winning elections. That is easier than any constitutional changes or conventions. DO not nominate candidates like Akin and Mourdock. They were too old and not savvy in dealing with MSM who is always out to get conservatives.
I will only support candidates in 2014/2016 who I feel are quick on their feet, can deal with MSM like Newt can, and never have that deer in headlight look when asked gotcha questions like Palin.
This is especially true in liberal states such as New York and California. No point in looking for a candidate like Ted Cruz in those states.
I was surprised at how long the moderator let me go.
I had posted my research from the constitutional convention to FR and knew EXACTLY the who, what, why and when. The oh-so-pompous perfesser was left practically speechless, muttered more incoherence and the moderator rescued him.
God help us if NPV gathers steam. Democracy over a wide continent and varied people means our end.
Thank you for sharing your feelings.
Considering the Framers’ experience in war and early state constitutions, I think their design of Congress and its relationship to the other branches and states was superb.
Do you disagree?
They made a fair compromise. They should have taken care of slavery and sufferage from the onset and they seemingly overlooked the problem of career partisans and they completely left out dissolution of the Union.
Other than that it’s the classical Triumvirate. The Supreme Court Justice, The President and the Speaker of the House.
The power and the influence of the Speaker of the House has been underrated of late. Speaker of the House is a very powerful position for the right type of individual.
I asked about the relationship of congress to the other branches and the states.
I think their design divided power sufficiently to prevent tyranny. Do you?
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.