Posted on 02/18/2015 3:14:56 AM PST by Jacquerie
The accepted dogma among many conservatives is that the way to save what remains of our republic is to vote conservative, constitutionalist, virtuous men and women into office. History shows that to be a blind alley, a dead end that occupies many minds, all the while evil men get away with high crimes.
Its a pity that electoral history going back decades have failed to disprove their belief. Most of the conservative candidates we send to congress go wobbly, rino or worse. Meanwhile, no congressional rats ever turn conservative.
Clearly, there is something outside the power of personal character and public virtue that has soured the worlds sweetest experiment in liberty.
The Framers werent the first to figure out that the key to liberty was division of power. By 1787, that concept, which is largely forgotten today, was actually old hat.
In 1513, a far lesser known influence on our framing generation began a review of the Roman Republic. Drawing chiefly from Livys Histories, Niccolo Machiavelli took a fresh look at old models. What he drew as Roman lessons for his contemporary republic of Florence, the maxims therein were well known to our Framers and certainly apply today.
From his Discourses on Livy, of fundamental importance to any republic is a government that establishes in it to take for granted that all men are evil and that they will always act according to the wickedness of their nature whenever they have the opportunity.
He drew from the experience of early Romans, whom he credited with regularly improving their republic. In general, it was the key to its longevity. In particular, the constant tension between the few and the many was finely tuned over the centuries. Plebs and nobles had their distinct powers, and when one overstepped its bounds, the other was ready to defend its political turf. Through regular improvements to their republic, Machiavelli described early republican Romans as being on the straight path which could lead them to perfection.
From his perspective, republican Romes four hundred year life was a successful quest in the achievement of government perfection.
When challenges arose, Rome didnt revert to the ages old cycle of monarchy/despotism, followed by aristocracy/oligarchy, and finally republicanism blowing up into anarchy.
Consider similarities with the life-cycle of the American Republic. Like the Romans, we started off under monarchs. Upon independence, we established distinct democratic republics. Soon thereafter, a loose governing structure in the form of a state dominated, (federal) confederation proved strong enough to cast off the British yoke. When that structure proved insufficient to secure peacetime public happiness, the people accepted a new design of government in the form of our Constitution, in which the states thoroughly participated, yet they shared power with representatives of the people. As when Rome established Tribunes of the people, America also followed a straight path toward perfection when it included a House of Representatives in its legislative body.
Further improvements in the form of fine adjustments to the republic followed. These include:
1791. Ten Amendments which acknowledged some God-given and societal rights.
1865. An amendment that eliminated the British imposed institution of slavery.
1868. The 14th Amendment that reinforced personal and societal rights guaranteed in the Declaration and Bill of Rights.
Until 1913, Americans remained on the straight path which could lead them to perfection.
Instead of strengthening the republic in the face of societal and economic change, Americans betrayed themselves. Overnight they weakened the freedom enhancing structure of their government. With the 17th Amendment they tossed confederal government and embraced a democratic republic, which history has shown to be precursor to anarchy, followed by tyranny.
They cut and pasted an inferior popular form over a finely tuned freedom enhancing federal form. Without adjusting enumerated powers which were designed with the assumption that the states would forever participate in congress, America substituted freedom with democracy as its central tenet.
There isnt much time to step back on the straight path to republican perfection. Obama is gathering despotic powers as quickly as he can. Little stands in his way.
Yet, we can avoid the historic cycle of despots, oligarchy, democracy, anarchy. Article V of the Constitution is there, it is within our grasp. We must take it, restore federalism, or join historys long list of failed republics.
Let's not exaggerate here. That is totally on me, and I am not a "crowd." I do not speak for anyone but myself, and am not the voice of any movement as a whole.
I will still continue to voice my own opinions but will not drag a thread down a hijacker's path. I will state my opinions and defend them, but will then leave it to the readers to decide on the merits without continuously descending into a did not did to spiral to nowhere.
-PJ
You mean they weren't any of these prior to the 1910s ? Bwahahahaha !
Few people here know more about what’s what than Auh2orepublican, sir.
State legislature appointed Senators also did an AWESOME job in the mirror universe, and performed EXACTLY how the framers had hoped. Instead of passing the 16th amendment in 1912, they ended world hunger and war, and discovered non-breeding tribbles. The problem is here is simply that freepers living in the alternate reality of perfect state legislatures don't realize that state legislature appointed Senators in OUR reality were slimy political hacks.
We’ll all have to take your word for it. And your writings do not seem to support any convincing authority on this subject, at least by your latest writings. And we know how historians do like to practice historical revisionism to satisfy their personal ideological concerns, like Doris Kearns Goodwin for instance, and many others, so your claims that your opinions about the 17th Amendment are somehow superior due to your, supposedly, being a political historian do not give your positions or opinions any extra authority here with many of us. Mainly because we also know some history and we know it was the progressives of the early 20th century that pushed for 17th ratification, and for reasons that we now see, thus I would suspect most of us believe that anyone who still supports the 17th, even after seeing first hand how much it has done to “fundamentally transform” our country from a Republic to a near direct democracy on the verge of becoming a federal dictatorship, some one who would openly support that could only be a crackpot or a progressive. Crackpots everywhere please accept my apologies.
That might very well be the case but it doesn’t change the fact that he was factually wrong about how the 17th, or any Constitutional Amendment is ratified. He was confusing the method of proposing Amendments with how they’re ratified. That is a fact if you would go back and read his post. I, not being a professional historian of course, did feel the need to correct him, and I posted the proof so you can whine all you want about how much you and he claim to know but when you’re wrong, you’re wrong and you’re going to get called on it especially when you bring an arrogant attitude into the discussion.
I guess you missed when AuH2ORepublican destroyed the anti-17ther argument that "The same people" who wrote the constitution were the ones who enacted the 12th amendment.
It must be really humimlating for anti-17thers to learn that there was only a 1.7% overlap between the membership of the constitution convention and the Congress that passed the 12th amendment, and only ONE person who had voted for both.
So unfortunately, YOU are the one who is factually challenged. It's not surprising since you agree with the leftist mantra that individual citizens can't be trusted to make decisions on our own, and thus we need professional politicians to do that FOR us. Having a deranged leftist perspective of politicians vs. we the people isn't healthy for someome claiming to be conservative.
Senators have always been, and will always be slimy political hacks. So what is your point. It seems pretty clear that today’s Senators are even more slimy as they are now able to take legal bribes called campaign contributions directly from the special interests. So since the original method produced imperfect results, but better results than the method of direct election you propose not to go back to the original method because it is not perfect. If perfection is your standard then there is never any system that can be in place and we might as well just propose anarchy.
When the rest of the anti-17th crowd is as outspoken and vehemently in favor of repealing the 12th amendment (creating 20 vanity threads about it per week and listening to Mark Levin rant for hours on the radio about how the 12th "destroyed our Republic" and how we should have trusted the framers wisdom to make the losing Presidential candidate into the Veep), then yes... your comments on the reason for the double standard would simply be your own worldview.
Incorrect. The original method produced imperfect results, but WORST results than the method of direct election.
Fieldmarshaldj has explained this numerous times.
Thanks to the 17th amendment, a Tea Party candidate like Ted Cruz who is NOT the choice of party establishment leaders in his state can become a U.S. Senator.
Without the 17th amendment, no possibility of this exists. The party establishment wants David Dewhurst as a Senator, so that's who the legislature would duly appoint.
That is the very definition of a straw man argument, one that progressives are very good at. I am debating the 17th and it’s ratification not the 12th. Stop moving the goal posts. It is not my contention that the people cannot be trusted, again another progressive straw man argument, my contention is that Senators were not supposed to represent the people, thus the people should not elect them. Senators supposed to represent the state legislatures in the Federal Congress thus it is the state legislatures that should appoint their representatives in the Federal Congress. The people are represented in the House of Representatives and that is the only representative the people should directly elect because that is where their interests are represented. It is so obvious you are a progressive troll as you keep making straw man arguments and moving the goal posts it is so Alyinsky like, and so obvious. I am a conservative precisely because I am an originalist as per the Constitutional Federal Republic and it’s structure thereof. Either way we have been over this territory previously, and he whom you’re defending was incorrect about the ratification process which is what I pointed out and of course you could not answer that point. Why do you keep making circular arguments that never answer any of the points I made? Never mind it was rhetorical and the answer is you cannot answer them, to do so would prove you a fool.
Some people see things as they are, some see things as they aren’t and will never be. Even if accepting the premise that pre-17th Senators were somehow closer to the ideal of (some of) the Founding Fathers, what you would get today would be an even worse nightmare than what we have at present.
Yes, because due to the "near direct democracy", there's a HUGE push to NEVER allow Obamacare to pass UNLESS a MAJORITY of all 300+ million Americans approve it.
And we'll NEVER have activist federal judges appointed to rule over us for life. Why, thanks to "near direct democracy", there's a HUGE effort to make EVERY federal judge accountable to the voters EVERY election.
And let's not forget that because of "near direct democracy", Obama would NEVER appoint "Czars" to positions in the federal government UNLESS the voters explictly authorize him to do so.
Illegal aliens can't get drivers licenses or voting in spanish either, since, we're on the verge of "near direct democracy" and poll after poll shows that Americans as whole are vehemently against that.
Of course, the biggest issue, obviously, is that gay marriage would NEVER EVER be imposed on a state that voted AGAINST it by majority rule, since we have "near direct democracy" in america and thus the politicians ALWAYS consider what the citizens as a whole want to be the ultimate deciding factor.
You anti-17thers keep using terms like "direct democracy" (which we're supposedly "in danger" of becoming despite the fact we have less and less democracy in america) and "republicanism" (which you seem to define as having a UK style parliamentary system where voters have no say over the upper house of government).
Apparently you do not understand what these words mean.
Yet if we trust the people to elect their own Senators, it will "destroy our Republic". Career politicians will make MUCH better choices than the people on who is worthy to serve as U.S. Senator.
The sad thing is you consider the above worldview to be "conservative" when its precisely the opposite.
Go anywhere in the world and ask the conservative party there what they think of having an UK-style 100% appointed upper house that is chosen by professional politicians and has no accountability from it citizens over how it governs.
Yep. For the same reason that Democrats debate gay marriage and its legalization but won't DARE talk about incest marriage and its legalization, even though the arguments they give in favor of the former apply equally to the latter.
In a 50-state lash-up, "one size fits all" is not a good criterion by which to judge this issue. What's true in Illinois is certainly not true in Florida, which has a "Republican" Governor and legislature. While managing to put Rubio in, the state is also represented in the Senate by the loonie Left Nelson.
Right now, 30 states have Republican Governors and legislatures. That means, IMNVHO, there should be at least 60 Republican Senators.
Furthermore, let's say that your particularly corrupt state and its heinously corrupt legislature (don't take that personally, it could not possibly be worse than Massachusetts) were to persist in sending Democrat Senators. If there were a convincing majority in the Senate opposed to them, how much federal money do you think Illinois would continue to get? The Democrats thrive on other people's and other states' money. Stanch that flow, and even Illinois Democrats on the local level might tend to become somewhat less enthusiastic.
State voters also have a greater opportunity to influence their state representatives, who typically have shorter terms. Theoretically, if a Senator is not performing well, they could bring the heat on a local representative far more easily than upon a sitting Senator himself. BTW, voter qualification is constitutionally supposed to be a state, rather than federal matter.
I do not categorically disagree with your premise in regard to Illinois and other dysfunctional states, but the Senate itself is now dysfunctional. I submit that returning to the original premises of the Constitution has the potential to do us more much good than harm.
BTW, Boxer and Feinstein, Hatch, McConnell, Reid, et al have become Billionaires while serving in the Senate. Why the American voter seems uninterested in this phenomenon is beyond me. The American voter, by 50%+ is no longer an informed citizen, but a mere "consumer" of federal services. Many pay nothing for the services and benefits they demand. On every level, we get exactly the government we deserve. Democracy = The Tyranny of the Ignorant.
You have it exactly backwards. The reason we have only one Ted Cruz is because of the 17th Amendment. The 17th DC to centralize their power because they now wield the power of the purse over prospective Senate candidates who must tow the party line in order to get money from the party to run their campaigns. It was the progressives who got the 17th ratified goal to centralize power in DC and it has worked. How does it feel to be a supporter the progressives ultimate goal?
bttt
Would you prefer to have none ?
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.