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.
It’s 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 world’s sweetest experiment in liberty.
The Framers weren’t 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 Livy’s 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 Rome’s four hundred year life was a successful quest in the achievement of government perfection.
When challenges arose, Rome didn’t 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 it’s central tenet.
There isn’t 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 history’s long list of failed republics.
What we now know as the 17th Amendment was first proposed by Andrew Jackson in his first State of the Union letter of 1829. He also proposed the abolition of the Electoral College due his unpleasant experience in 1824. Neither of his suggestions were taken up by Congress.
In the decades after the Civil War, one of the Progressives' most cherished projects was the direct election of senators. The House easily passed an amendment to effect this, but the Senate always balked. The state legislatures then applied for an Amendments Convention to address this.
By 1912, the two-thirds threshold had been reached. The Senate feared that an Amendments Convention would propose an amendment that would require the election of the full Senate by the people once it was ratified. The Senate proposed an amendment that would phase in the new paradigm with each congressional election. The Senate passed it, and the House slam-dunked it.
Because some state legislatures had Discharge Clauses in their applications, the fact that Congress had put the 17th Amendment before the states for ratification "discharged" certain applications, and the threshold had now slipped below two-thirds. This was how Congress weaseled out of calling a convention in 1912 to address this issue.
But it had been percolating long before 1912.
-PJ
Faith and reality are not mutually exclusive. My faith actually assists me in tackling the reality problems of the day and gives me insight where others seem a bit clueless. True faith wades into the problem, but with the lights shining, not groping in darkness.
Nevertheless, we have a monumental problem that I believe will not be solved without a monumental God. America’s very formation was a miracle. As our Founders did their bit, so we do our bit, but as they trusted in Almighty Providence, so must we. Again, we will get to our destination with BOTH patient effort AND faith. But self-effort alone is and will be an exercise in futility.
“Let them spend their time debating and legislating, not campaigning and fund-raising.”
To summarize from a previous post by Grace G, I see it as:
1. Elect More Republicans - Failed due to RINO/Uni-party confluence
2. Article V Convention of States to propose Amendments - Needed to try to take power from the federal government back to the states and reel in the the federal monster.
3. State Nullification - Last ditch effort to try to take power back from the federal monster, though by this point it may be too late...
4. State Secession - Could either end up peaceably like the breakup of the Czechoslovakia in 1993 or a brutal:
5. Civil War II like the first one.... The longer we wait on #2. the more likely #3, then #4 and finally #5. .
Most FReepers are aware of these links, but I post anyway for review and for people new to Article V. It is our responsibility to make Article V the most understood aspect of the US Constitution.
Convention of States - Alabama Way to go Alabama! A good introduction.
Rep. Bill Taylor introduces a Convention of States
The Case for an Article V Convention. Great explanation of an Article V convention to the Massachusetts State Legislature.
Convention of States Lots of information here.
Call a Convention A call for a Convention of States
Article V Project to Restore Liberty Another good source.
Convention of States model Resolution
A Summary of Mark Levin’s Proposed Amendments by Jacquerie
Chapter 1 of Mark Levin’s Book, The Liberty Amendments
Mark Levin, Constitution Article V, and the Liberty Amendments
List of Mark Levin You Tube Videos
Mark Levin Article V, Liberty Amendments youtube video hub
Three hour video of C-Span interview with Mark Levin
Mark Levin’s ALEC Speech, Dec 4, 2014
Gaining Steam? Nearly 100 Lawmakers Descend on Mount Vernon to Talk Convention of States The beginning.
Mark Levin’s “Liberty Amendments” Sean Hannity Special
Convention to Propose Amendments to the United States Constitution
The Other Way to Amend the Constitution: The Article V Constitutional Convention Amendment Process
Friends of Article V Convention Links
Congress’ Present Duty to Call a Convention:
Congress’ Present Duty to Call a Convention. (Part I)
Congress’ Present Duty to Call a convention. (Part II)
Congress’ Present Duty to Call a Convention. (Part III)
Congress’Present Duty to Call a Convention. (Part IV)
Congress’ Present Duty to Call a Convention. (Part V)
Contress’ Failure to Call an Amendments Convention. (Part VI)
Ulysses at the Mast: Democracy, Federalism, and the Sirens' Song of the Seventeenth Amendment by Jay Bybee. Repeal the 17th
Article V Handbook - for State Legislators An important resource.
State Legislators Article V Caucus State Legislators, Join up at this site!
Most State Legislatures are in session now. Send this list of links to your State Representatives and Senators here: Contact your State Legislators.
Sample Letter to state Representatives regarding the Convention of States Project and also, Talking Points.
Excellent Article V Letter to a State Assemblyman by Jacquerie
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke.
Let’s all work together to get this going.
-PJ
“They weren’t the only ones involved, even if only a few where in Congress at the time.”
“Adams and Jefferson when’t Framers because they were in France at the time, but they were Founders and the 1796 and 1800 elections at the center of it all were theirs.”
“Jefferson was president at the time, and Madison was in Jefferson’s Cabinet. Alexander Hamilton was playing spoiler and King-maker. John Jay also ran in the elections in question.”
Hamilton, another important Framer, never served in the U.S. Congress, nor did John Jay (who was not a Framer, even if he did pen five of the Federalist Papers). Of course, they were prominent Federalists, and perhaps you are implying that they worked behind the scenes (particularly “kingmaker” Hamilton) in convincing Federalists to vote for the 12th Amendment. Alas, there were nine Federalists in the U.S. Senate in December 1803, and ALL NINE VOTED AGAINST THE ADOPTION OF THE 12TH AMENDMENT. Nine of the ten Senators to vote against the Amendment were Federalists, which tells you a bit about what the party of George Washington, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton thought of the 12th Amendment (oh, and the only Democratic-Republican to vote against the Amendment was Framer Pierce Butler).
“So yes, the Framers were very much interested players in this. I can’t imagine that they remained silent given that this amendment arose from their peers as a result of their own elections.”
“Good. Keep them in their own states. Make the state legislators’ election about the Senate. Make the Senator be the face to the voters. Link local politics with federal politics the way it was intended. Ask the local politician what state interests they want the Senator to represent. Hold the local politician accountable for the actions of the Senator, and vote them out locally if the Senator they campaigned with betrays them.”
Most definitely.
Well said and I entirely agree.
State elections would once again be part of the national scene. Lincoln/Douglas debates are the example.
A senator responsible to a few hundred state legislators who watch his every vote is far more accountable than those we have today.
Heh. Excellent research there. I thought about looking up the membership of Congress in 1803 to compare it to the makeup of the Constitution Convention of 1787, but it seemed tedious and not worth the trouble.
But that was pretty awesome, thanks for debunking the "people who enacted the 12th amendment were the SAME people who decided on the original method in the U.S. Constitution and were now amending their own work" BS argument from the anti-17th crowd.
Well at least they can point to a single "framer" who changed his mind between 1787 and 1803! Too bad the other two were STILL against it, and everyone else promoting the 12th amendment played no role in framing the Constitution. (which means its treasonous for them to DARE second guess what the founders envisioned and change the infallible system THEY designed, unless The Great One Mark Levin himself was also a member of the 1803 Congress... which I'm sure his fans believe was the case)
Sadly James Wilson wasn't around in 1913 to say "I told you so" to the rest of the framers. Per Wikipedia, James Wilson was a Washington appointee to SCOTUS and "closely identified with conservative republican groups". My kinda guy!
My interests are represented by neither. How do you think it will magically work when you’ve already been informed why it didn’t before the 17th was implemented ?
Ludicrous. Empowering corrupt legislatures is a step in the right direction ? Their sole concern will be sending unapologetic looters.
If you think state legislatures would’ve sent fiscal Conservative Senators in the era of FDR and onward, you’re fooling yourself.
Your conclusion is in error.
Heh. Some mighty big irony there. The only way you'd ENSURE the U.S. Senate was 100% beholden to "the two party system" would be to REPEAL the 17th amendment.
Thanks to the 17th amendment, third party candidates who have NO loyalty to the Republicans OR Democrats are occasionally (through rarely) elected directly to the U.S. Senate by the people. Examples include James Buckley (Conservative Party-NY) and Ernest Lundeen (elected on the Farmer–Labor Party ticket, back when they were a third party in Minnesota)
Good luck getting any non Republican and Democrat Party boot lickers appointed by modern day state legislatures. The days of the Know Nothings and Populists getting a foothold in state governments are long gone. Remind me again, how many state legislatures in this country are controlled by third parties or independents?
You really do not know what your talking about. As you can see below from the text of Article V, neither House of the Congress has any role in ratifying an Amendment, but by a 2/3’s majority in each the Congress can propose amendments. You have been factually wrong about everything in this debate, it is time for you to quite while you’re behind, stop digging the hole any deeper, you really are factually challenged as are most progressives who support the 17th amendment. And for your information I would support repealing both 16 and 17 and going back to funding the Federal Government by way of tariffs only, so long as we ratify as part of those repeals that the only money spent by the federal government has to be, written into each years budget line items, the constitutional mandate for that particular spending, that way the Dept of Education, the IRS, PBS, NPR, Dept of Energy, Dept of Labor, Dept of Commerce, etc...etc... could all be zeroed out of the Federal Government.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
No, it wouldn’t. Plus your assumption that the Republicans elected would be fiscal Conservatives is woefully in error. You’d never get a Ted Cruz elected (or Rand Paul, if you’re so inclined). You’d have big gubmint flunkies like Karl Rove and David Dewhurst as the Senators from TX. KY would still be electing Democrats.
Thank you, I’m a political historian and I do indeed know “how it worked.” That’s why anti-17th types are woefully uninformed or ignorant on the subject.
The more appropriate question would be how many ever were? And when were there more than two viable parties?
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.