Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Peet

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


72 posted on 11/29/2013 12:25:32 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]


To: fieldmarshaldj

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


99 posted on 11/30/2013 3:02:40 AM PST by Peet (Oderint dum metuant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

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

Or with the federal income tax -- the 16th, rather than the 17th amendment. Combine that with the world wars that required and (in most people's minds) justifiec higher federal taxes, and you see a reversal of the situation under the Articles of Confederation.

Right after the Revolution, the federal government had to beg for money from the states. With the Constitution it got its own limited right of direct taxation. With the federal income tax, Washington DC eventually became the great source of funds for state projects. Combine the tax with the federal governments greater ability to borrow funds and incur debt and its control of the monetary system and it amounted to a major shift in the relation of the federal and state government.

The founders obviously didn't intend that, but I think maybe they were of two minds. They were creating a federal government that would draw the states closer together into a national union. They built a capital that would act as a magnet for politically ambitious people, drawing them away from state and local politics.

But they still thought of the states as in some way distinct cultures: Massachusetts and Virginia, New York and Maryland, Pennsylvania and South Carolina. As the country grew closer together, as new states were added that didn't have long traditions, as political talent concentrated in Washington, it was going to become harder and harder to maintain the older model.

107 posted on 11/30/2013 9:10:20 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson