Replies

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.

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.