Washington is divided Because it has Abandoned Federalism

Washington Examiner ^ | August 14, 2014 | Philip Klein

[Jacquerie]

It may sound pedestrian to point out, but it’s critical to restate why it’s so important that our nation is called the United States of America, and not simply America.

The full name emphasizes that the Founders viewed the nation not as one monolithic entity but as a union of sovereign entities delegating limited powers to a central government.

To preserve this balance, the Founders put a number of checks in the U.S. Constitution, most notably creating the Senate, which allows for equal membership from every state, thus preventing states with larger populations from running roughshod over the interests of smaller ones.

Originally senators were elected by state legislatures as a way of making sure that state interests were protected in Washington — a check that eroded with the passage of the 17th Amendment allowing for their direct election.

In other words, the Founders made it intentionally difficult to pass major legislation at the national level that would trample over the desires of smaller states.

Instead of trying to solve every issue at the national level, power should be shifted back to the states. Under such a system, instead of bitterly hashing out every issue in Washington, Congress could be focusing on a limited range of issues.

[Jacquerie]

Over the past 235 years, the structure of government or its relationship to the people and states were radically changed four times. The Articles of Confederation of 1781, the Constitution of 1788, the 14th Amendment in 1868, and the 17th Amendment of 1913 brought big changes.

It is way past time to recognize the 17th Amendment was a mistake, a horrible error which immediately consolidated power in Washington, DC. No even year election alone can reverse the past and future damage of unlimited power in the hands of the few or . . . The One.

Article V.

[Jacquerie]

Article V, 17th Amendment Ping!

[Principled]

16th changed our relationship w/ gov’t perhaps as much as 17th

[4Liberty]

Bump!

[Repeal The 17th]

Thanks for the ping.

[RayChuang88]

Hence the reason for my tagline.

Indeed, repealing the 16th Amendment and replacing the income tax with FairTax would be the most liberating thing to happen to the USA since the American Revolution itself.

[unread]

Even though the Constitution begins with "we the people," it was really "We the states" that formed the Constitution. The Constitution itself indicates that it would not come into existence until two-thirds of the thirteen states agreed to accept it. So when one thinks of the federal government of the United States of America, one should think of a government with limitations imposed on it by the Constitution and with powers given to it by the various states. This, of course, presumes--historically this is the case--the thirteen original states preceded the existence of the federal government and actually, literally gave away some of their powers so as to form a central government. As an example, before 1789, many states issued their own currency and had their own armies. this obviously is something they cannot do under the Constitution because they gave those powers away to the central , federal government.

Copyed from "THE FREEDOM ANSWER BOOK" by Judge A. P. Napolitano.

A very nice little book....

[Jacquerie]

After researching the founding/framing era for over a decade, and the 17th Amendment for about the past two years, it was only a few weeks ago that I realized the central problem with the 17th.

The 17th denied consent of the governed. It is as easy as that.

Every republic prior to ours featured, by definition, participation of the people either directly or through some form of representation. The law acted on the people, and the people were present in the legislative body. Perfect sense.

The American republic was different, for the constitution acted not only on the people, but the states as well.

In order to be consistent with republican theory and experience, the states MUST have a seat at the legislative table if the government is to constitutionally act on them. To remain consistent with fundamental republicanism, every clause in the constitution which dealt with the states should have been repealed upon ratification of the 17th.

Now that of course can't be done because the states, people and the government they created are thoroughly intertwined in their duties and powers.

Removing the states from congress makes as much sense as removing the people from congress. None.

That is my point, the states are essential to the smooth operation of our republic and cannot be removed without causing internal contradictions which must lead to dissolution or tyranny.

[Nuc 1.1]

Very well said and insightful.

[Political Junkie Too]

The 17th denied consent of the governed. It is as easy as that.

I think it was a post of yours several months ago that made me realize that the problem with the 17th was that it converted the Senate from a body of the states to a body of the parties. That problem then metastasized into the courts via advice and consent.

It would be much harder for strict party alignment to operate in a Senate where the members are selected by independent state legislatures, than it is today via party funding of constant general elections.

-PJ

[Jacquerie]

Good point.

Like any employee, politicians will play the tune of their employers. Senators and Presidents are products of their parties.

Remove them from the party process of climbing, promising, taking campaign funds, and general demagoguing. Make them responsible to a couple hundred state legislators in fifty states and watch our republic recover.

[arthurus]

The ratification of the 17th Amendment was the tipping point in the progress toward the Unitary totalitarian State. I don’t think we can go back. The public school system has de-educated the population and there is no concept of History. With no history there is no awareness of what has gone before, what has succeeded and what fails every time.

[Monorprise]

I could hardly agree more. Federalism is the only way to deal with a diverse people and economy in freedom and justice.

[Monorprise]

Liberals respect anther people to live by the laws of their own making? Never!

That is completely contrary to the very central primis of modern ‘liberalism’ which is just a dressed up form of centralized totalitarianism. Modern liberals are in bed with political tyrants, because those tyrants offer them bread and circus as other people’s expense.

[x]

Well, sure, but that's not going to change.

Indirect election of Senators certainly isn't going to change things either.

[Jacquerie]

You didn’t read the column.

[Jacquerie]

<> Federalism is the only way to deal with a diverse people and economy in freedom and justice.<>

That is the best single sentence explanation I've read on the need for a return of the states to the senate. Be sure to save it!

[Jacquerie]

I’m not very hopeful either, for the reason you describe.

Still, the Assembly of States will meet this coming December. Perhaps there is a flicker of hope.

If the states do not decide to do an end run around our oppressors in DC, and soon, the grand experiment in American republicanism will be over, and the world can expect a new Dark Age.

[Monorprise]

“<> Federalism is the only way to deal with a diverse people and economy in freedom and justice.<>
That is the best single sentence explanation I’ve read on the need for a return of the states to the senate. Be sure to save it!”

If you like it take it and uses it as your own. There are no copywriters on political speech. Honestly I’ve heard and made better, but to each his own.

[Monorprise]

I think with Obama’s efforts at effecting demographic replacement of our population by facilitating the invasion from the south. The days of America are indeed numbered. We don’t succeeded we will soon enough be made aliens in our own homes.