The Founders Would Not Be Thankful For These 10 Things

Townhall.com ^ | November 28, 2013 | Sarah Jean Seman

[fieldmarshaldj]

You’re not wrong. But you’re not going to change the problems this nation faces by repealing the 17th. I’d love to have a Senate full of Constitutionalists like Ted Cruz, but he couldn’t have been elected by the TX legislature... that would’ve been David Dewhurst, a liberal RINO. The people overrode such a decision and voted for Cruz.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I see you’re dining on leftovers of red herring. Forgive me if I won’t be joining you.

[x]

The Constitution was changed because the country (and the states and their governments) had changed.

Changing the Constitution back wouldn't transform the country (or the states or their legislatures) into something it hasn't been for generations.

The idea is so straightforward and simple that it's attractive to many people, though.

[Jacquerie]

Question 1) in post #69 unanswered. FM doesn’t know if he thinks he is an historian.

Question 2) in post #76 unanswered. FM doesn’t know what his right to vote for senators is supposed to accomplish.

Question 3) in post #80 is unanswered. FM is certain he has the right to vote for senators, but has no opinion as to popular election of presidents and federal judges.

Question 4) Is separation of powers necessary to good government?

[BillyBoy]

Since state governments are obviously sooooo superior to the federal government, and having bigger and more powerful local and state governments are the ideal to “save our Republic”, I must have it GREAT here! Feast your eyes on all the government bureaucrats we have in MY state!

http://watchdog.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/11/number-of-governments.jpg

[fieldmarshaldj]

Exactly. It’s sad that they fail to see that the best Senator in that body today (Cruz) could not have even been elected with the repeal of the 17th, yet they keep humping away at this fantasy notion of theirs.

[BillyBoy]

>> The Constitution was changed because the country (and the states and their governments) had changed. <<

Correct. The state governments and their legislatures in 1912 bore no resemblence to the vision "the founders" had for them in 1789, and were mostly fat cat corrupt politicians instead of "wise statesmen".

>> Changing the Constitution back wouldn't transform the country (or the states or their legislatures) into something it hasn't been for generations. <<

Changing the U.S. Constitution to repeal the 17th amendment would revert the U.S. Senate back to what it was before the adaptation of the amendment -- a body of unaccountable socialist RATs and RINOs who got their cushy jobs by dolling out big $$$ and corrupt favors to their party bosses in smoke filled rooms. Ironically, these state legislature appointed hacks that you love so much were responsible for the 16th and 17th amendments that you detest so much.

[BillyBoy]

>> Ain’t much more “progressive” than putting complete faith and trust into elite politicians. I don’t trust politicians. <<

Yep. Supporting repeal of the 17th goes against the basic principle of conservatism 101: that we need LESS government because individual citizens, and NOT politicians, make the best decisions over our lives. Conservativism is the idea that there should be limited government at ALL levels, that big government should NOT be making decisions for us that we can make on our own.

Those who support the repeal of the 17th argue the opposite approach: letting individual citizens decide who their Senator should be has destroyed our Republic, we need bigger and more powerful political elites and governments to make that decision for us, because we can't trust the people to handle their own affairs. The same argument used by the left to mandate things like Obamacare and gun control.

[goat granny]

As several have written over the past months about what the founders think or that they are rolling over in their graves, I don't think the founding fathers give a darn about what the US is now. They told the people... we have given you a Representative democracy if you can keep it...Sorry I may be paraphrasing. We are just hanging on by a thread and the founders are long gone only their thoughts remain as written. Its each generation that has to defend the Constitution. What we have become is far from the written words of the constitution so slowly and no one listened to the warning of a few that could see. Just in the 7 decades I have been on earth, I tell my grand kids they still live in a semi-free country. I think my generation will be the last to remember freedom. That's sad for them..

If through the decades we haven't kept it, they did all they could and don't roll over in their graves at what we have become. We were warned...

[Jacquerie]

Question 1) in post #69 unanswered. FM doesn’t know if he thinks he is an historian.

Question 2) in post #76 unanswered. FM doesn’t know what his right to vote for senators is supposed to accomplish.

Question 3) in post #80 is unanswered. FM is certain he has the right to vote for senators, but has no opinion as to popular election of presidents and federal judges.

Question 4) in post #84 is unanswered. FM has no comment regarding the foundation of our republic, separation of powers.

FM and his sidekicks haven't learned the lesson of the last hundred years, that which the framing generation learned in eleven. From the experience of ancient republics and that of the thirteen new states, they knew that democratic republics inevitably work toward anarchy, class conflict, social disorder of such virulence that they typically terminate in a dictatorship.

That is exactly where we are headed, and our fate is inevitable absent renewal of vertical separation of powers.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Jackie, whether you like it or not, my side deals in reality. You deal in a myth and obsess over red herrings. Empowering politicians (who have far too much power already) will not get us out of our predicament.

[BillyBoy]

Alrighty, Jacquerie (suitable French sounding screenname, BTW), you're going to keep hammering on the same questions, I will answer them. Then you can ignore it and go back to smearing anyone who disagrees with you as a "progressive", even though your side is the one arguing that we should trust big government and not individuals to make decisions for themselves.

>>> Question 1) in post #69 unanswered. FM doesn’t know if he thinks he is an historian. IIRC, you’ve described yourself at FR as an historian, right? <

Fieldmarshaldj has a vast array of historical knowledge about political history that has far surpassing anything I have from memory, and likely you as well. You are welcome to test his political knowledge. As to whether he is a historian professionally, I don't know, but he certainly has the capacity for it.

>> Question 2) in post #76 unanswered. FM doesn’t know what his right to vote for senators is supposed to accomplish. What is the purpose of government? <<

Government exists to do what people cannot do for themselves. Limited, minimal powers of government at ALL levels (local, state, and federal) is what is ideal, something you anti-17thers just don't seem to understand. You seem to think big government is only bad on the federal level, and tyrannical, unlimited, extremely powerful government on the state level will "Save our Republic". Modern society has proven you wrong.

>> Question 3) in post #80 is unanswered. FM is certain he has the right to vote for senators, but has no opinion as to popular election of presidents and federal judges. If the popular election of both reps and senators is a right regardless of the 17th Amendment, is there also a right to elect the president and supreme court? <<

Fieldmarshaldj never made the claim that popular election of both reps and senators is guaranteed regardless of the 17th amendment, therefore your question is a "have you stopped beating your wife?" question and is irrelevant. If you want to go back to who had a "right" to vote when the "founders" established this country in 1789, it would consist of only white male property owners in the 13 original states. Anyone else voting is a deviation from what we had when the Constitution was established by the founders, whether or not the 17th amendment is in place. Probably the 15th amendment affecting the voting population much more than the 13th and changed what the founders had in mind in 1789. Would you like to abolish it?

>> Question 4) in post #84 is unanswered. FM has no comment regarding the foundation of our republic, separation of powers. Is separation of powers necessary to good government? <<

Separation of powers is ideal for good government in a Republic, whether you're talking about separation between executive/legislature/judicial, or between federal/state/local. The separation of powers, however, is not absolute. Ironically, in many of the countries that have the system you'd prefer (politicians appointing whoever they want to the federal upper house and the people having zero say in the matter), there is NO separation of powers between the legislative branch and the executive branch (a prominent example being the country we declared independence from), so your argument is another "have you stopped beating your wife?" question. I would also add your side seem to fail to understand separation of powers as well, the way you constantly scream "STATES RIGHTS!!" and claim we should send everything on the planet "back to the states" and have the federal government wash their hands of it completely. The founders certainly disagreed with you, which is why they specifically designed some powers ONLY to the federal government, some powers ONLY to the state government, and some powers to both levels of government. A balance between state and federal powers is what is necessary to a good government. If it makes you feel better, politicians still have the power to appoint whoever they want to federal government to serve as judge, and we the people have no say in the matter.

[BillyBoy]

And since I have now answered Jacquerie's questions, which he is so upset was "unanswered", I will return the favor and pose some questions to him. I'm sure he would be happy to answer and set the example:

1) Do you support the repeal of the 12th amendment? If not, please explain why you do not wish to return to the type of federal government the founders originally set up to provide for a balance in government.

2) Do you support the use of recall elections? Would you like to see recall extended so we would have the power to recall U.S. Senators and Congressmen? Would we need a Constitutional amendment to do so?

3) If government-appointed Senators would be vastly superior to the system we have now, and produce a U.S. Senate of wise constitutional statesmen that represent the interests of their states and reign in federal overreach, wouldn't the same be true if the LOWER house was appointed by state legislatures as well? Wouldn't it produce much better Congressmen who stand for state interests and respect local authorities? If so, is there any reason you wouldn't favor having a 100% appointed lower house, aside from the fact "the founders" didn't set it up that way? If the government-appointed method produces better federal officials, then didn't the founders err by opting for the "inferior" method of having citizens elect their Congressmen?

4) When, specifically, did you realize that "our Republic was destroyed" due to Senators being elected instead of appointed? By any chance was in the last 10 years that you "discovered" we MUST return to the method used in 1789 to "save our Republic"?

5) Were the government-appointed U.S. Senators in power back in 1913 (you know, the ones who passed the 16th and 17th amendments in the first place), a body of wise elder statesmen who represented the best interests of their states and understood federalism and upheld the separation of powers? If not, why do you think repealing the 17th would magically make the Senate do so now, when it didn't for decades BEFORE the 17th became law?

6) By any chance are you a Mark Levin fan?

[BillyBoy]

>> You may live in tyranny, but not everyone lives in a hell hole. <<

Given who was just elected Governor of central_va's "conservative" state, I'd give it a few months before he's living in a hell hole. I wish you the best of luck in enpowering your socialist state government officials to have power to control your life.

[sickoflibs]

RE:”6) By any chance are you a Mark Levin fan?”

LOL,

I can guess the answer you will get:

‘These were my ideas I thought up all by myself. I think they are great ideas. Did he suggest this too? Why do you ask that?’

Been there many times.

[Impy]

I still want to know what freaking moron first started pimping this repeal the 17th nonsense. Was his Majesty, Mark the Levin, the first? The first people that I heard pimping it were Alan Keyes and ZELL MILLER.

Even if it wasn’t a misguided and stupid idea (WHICH IT IS) it:

A)Has zero chance of ever passing. Z-E-R-O
B)Would be POISON for any candidate dumb enough to campaign on it

This is without a doubt, the dumbest fringe pet issue I’ve ever heard of. The ratio of bluster to relevancy is off the charts in favor of bluster.

[Impy]

We’re # 1, we’re # 1!!! Unsurprising.

Thank goodness Cook County townships are defunct in the city or I’d have another wonderful layer of local government.

Lots of small towns is Kansas eh?

[Jacquerie]

1 No. The 12th was an adjustment, not radical change.

2 I support recall of senators IF they are state appointed. An amendment is required.

3 You choose to remain ignorant of the history of democratic republics. BTW, the proper word is "rein," not "reign." No, the House was designed to represent the people and should be popularly elected. Consent of the people, as represented in the House is fundamental to republics. Entirely democratic legislatures are certain to lead to tyranny, the face of which is Obama.

4 I don't recall when I figured out the framers got it right.

5 The pre-17th Senate far better secured the un-enumerated powers that remained with the states. That was a stupid question, even for you.

6 Yes.

You boys are hung up on the virtue, or lack thereof, of individual politicians. The framer's system was designed to minimize the fact that men are not angels. Rule of law v. rule of man, get it? For a trio of self-style historians who claim to "know facts" you really don't know jack.

Oh, and 16th, 17th amendments were the progressive's wet dream. Without them, the explosion in government, New Deal, Great Society, Obamacare would have been impossible. If you think "Government exists to do what people cannot do for themselves," you are not grounded in our history, but are pure progressive. Congratulations.

I was going to suggest you take a trip through The Federalist. Don't bother.

Until the next thread, Ciao'.

[Peet]

One could make a valid argument that the concept of strong state powers ceased with the Civil War.

---

You’re absolutely correct.

Also that loss of states’ power is not even SLIGHTLY related to the progressives attempts to drive a stake into the heart of the Republic in the early 20th century.

All the above still leaves open the likelyhood that the 17th is a progressive shot at state power , not an admission that appt. of senators was a failure.

Personally I don’t have faith in the voters doing a better job than the state legislatures. After all, look who’s _resident. Even if only 1/3 the states do it right (remember the constutional purpose of appts) we’d be way ahead of where we are now.

JMHO

[metesky]

That’s why the people demanded it be changed.

After twenty years of progressive propaganda, the people, in their wisdom, disenfranchised the states.