Posted on 09/07/2015 2:44:16 AM PDT by markomalley
(snip)
Will said, “There’s no question that the president’s selective interpretation of the Constitutional provision that the executive shall see that the laws are faithfully execute his selective approach to that perhaps has encouraged a kind of lawlessness. People saying well, I can do whatever I wish. But surely it is a wholesome rule that executives should obey legitimate court orders. That’s true whether your name is Orval Faubus, the Democratic governor of Arkansas in the 1950s or George Wallace, the democratic governor of Alabama in the ’60s. Kim Davis, the Democratic county clerk in Kentucky.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
> “This is the part I don’t get: Why would the states try to use an application for an Article V COS to eliminate their own representation in Congress? I just don’t get it.”
This is a very good question to perform research on. To do it justice, one should go to a first class university library (I’m thinking something similar to the Suzzallo library at the University of Washington http://www.lib.washington.edu/about/hours/mcnews) and pour over the periodical histories of journals, newpapers, magazines (microfiche and increasingly scanned and available inside the library or online to faculty) for popular sentiment at the time. I mean one should really dig at what everyday normal people were thinking at the time by examining columnists, editorials, letters to the editors, etc. Get a good view of the mood of the electorate at the time.
Suffice to say that “things came to a head”.
Several western territories had just joined or were joining the Union.
Several instances of “used-car-sales” tactics by state legislators had been performed.
Candidates for state legislative offices were known to be of bad character but managed to say what the crowds wanted to hear in relation to whom they wanted to see appointed to US Senator for the State, and they were elected based on only that.
Some states failed to even appoint US Senators.
State elections had non-binding ‘show votes’ by the state electorate for US Senators, similar to presidential ‘show votes’ but where the Electoral College actually appoints the President.
The state electorates could not see the long-term consequences of their actions.
The Federal Government was a much smaller part of the lives of Americans at the time and much more revered. People simply could not imagine the monstrous growth and intrusion that would ensue. As one Freeper ‘Publius’ summarized, the corruption was transferred from Main Street to K-Street.
The ratio of Voters to US Senators was much much lower in 1913 than in 2013. The higher ratio of today allows for many more ways to obscure a US Senator’s true agenda and allegiance.
Since 1913 US Senate rules and Parliamentary tricks have evolved to allow US Senators to perform dead-on-arrival ‘Show Votes’ conforming to the People’s Will but voting on essential legislation that provide riders that actually serve the agenda of the Oligarchs.
The respect for federal versus state government has done a ‘180’ in the last 100 years precisely because of the power shift from states to centralized government. This shift was caused precisely by enactment of the 17th Amendment but few could see it coming.
The history of seeking a popular vote for US Senators started at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 but was shot down by a 9 to 1 margin. It came up again several times in the 19th century as a proposed amendment led by efforts in Congress, not by grassroots Article V efforts. When Congress proposed a popular vote, it was seen cynically. If the People proposed it, it was seen positively.
Whereas local politics was held in check by the people, the US Senate was out of their reach because of backroom dealing and corruption. The People’s will was exercised in the House of Representatives but thwarted in the US Senate and there was no recourse other than to vote in State Legislators who would appoint US Senators who would be faithful to the People’s will. But it wasn’t working. There was no recall provision (more on that in a moment).
When local thinkers of the day questioned why the Founders had opted for appointment of US Senators versus a direct popular vote, the answers were that some Founders had thought a British like ‘House of Lords’ would keep intact the sovereignty of the states. But that was not the full reason.
Marxism was a theory being bandied about in intellectual circles and was not yet unpopular, impugned or discredited. Hence, ‘new ideas’, ‘new thinking’, ‘progressivism’ was in the air boosting new vanguards of modernism. Flying machines, horseless carriages, radio and so on, all added to the illusion that new political thinking was in order, ‘Hope and Change’ etc. Bottomline was that the Constitutional Scholars of the day and the era’s custodians of history were MIA or pushed aside.
As conservatives of today we are not entertaining any illusions.
We have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight.
Here are some courses of action to remedy historical errors of the past 100 years:
************************************************
AMENDMENT XXVIII
To redress the balance of powers between the federal government and the States and to restore effective suffrage of State Legislatures to Congress, the following amendment is proposed:
************************************************
Section 1.
A Senator in Congress shall be subject to recall by their respective state legislature or by voter referendum in their respective state.
Section 2.
The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
************************************************
and,
************************************************
AMENDMENT XXIX
To enhance federalism between the States and their Federal Government, the following amendment is proposed:
************************************************
Section 1.
Term limits for Senators in Congress shall be set by vote in their respective state legislatures but in no case shall be set less than twelve years nor more than eighteen years.
Section 2.
Upon a majority vote in three-fifths of state legislatures, specific federal statutes, federal court decisions and executive directives of any form shall be repealed and made void.
************************************************
In Amendment 28 (XXVIII) above, the second provision IMO is not necessary but would nevertheless boost the speed of the decentralization of the Federal Government and transference of power back to States. It is not necessary in the sense that the Main Goal is to get the Federal Government back in the business of being checked by the States. And that goal coupled with the observation that repeal of the 17th will be caught up in a huge rehash of history replete with emotional symbolism thereby slowing down completion of the Main Goal, makes for a strong argument that repeal of the 17th may do more harm at this point than good. The first provision of Amendment 28 above accomplishes the Main Goal. The second provision merely speeds up the transference of power back to the states.
One way to persuade state voters to give up their right to vote directly for their state’s US Senators is to convince them that they are in fact and truly being elevated from ‘voter’ to ‘overseer’. This is explained in the next paragraph.
The first provision of Amendment 28 has two modes; the first mode is by vote in the state legislature and the second mode is by voter referendum. Voter referendums can be held independent of actions by the state legislature. Hence, if a state legislature should be unresponsive to the will of the state electorate in regards to the appointment or recall of US Senators, the state electorate has a ‘Trump Card’. Therefore, the state electorates are always having a degree of control of their US Senators.
From the point of view of US Senators under Amendment 28, they must not only respect the Will of their State Legislature, they must also respect the Will of the State’s Voters.
So betty boop I hope you will use your superb research and exposition skills and talents to do a thorough research on the popular sentiment of the era of 1913 that came out in favor of the 17 Amendment. I am sure there is much more to uncover there.
Be advised that this early grassroots Article V effort which was taken over by Congress, is not to be taken out of context as to the foolishness of leaving amendments in the hands of the grassroots because as I mentioned above the push for a direct vote of US Senators was attempted several times before by Congress itself and was met with failure in ratification by States. The grassroots certainly performed admirably in the effort leading to the repeal of the 18th which incidentally is the only amendment that had its mode of ratification chosen by Congress as the state conventions approach versus the the state legislature approach and that choice reflected a respect for the will of the electorate. Lastly, the tools available to today’s grassroots are so much more enriching and available that the decisions made by grassroots can be steeped in ageless wisdom and guided by highly esteemed Constitutional Scholars that have the 20/20 hindsight that was missing in 1913.
I will hope that you will consider untangling some of the competing and conflicting interests of the era surrounding the 17th ratification. It would be a great thread in itself!
I'll go to the link you provided, and see where it takes me from there.
Thank you ever so much!
I should mention one more factor of huge influence shaping the thinking of the people of 1913.
That would be the attitudes, views, positions and reactions of people in the aftermath of the nation’s Civil War, War Between The States, War of Northern Aggression, however it may have been called or viewed.
People of 1913 were only 48 years removed from the end of that great conflict, and only 39 years removed from the beginning of the Era of Reconstruction.
Obviously memories of the nation’s Civil War weighed as a heavy influence in all matters of State Rights versus Federal Government and was a significant factor in the attitudes and leanings of people at the time in supporting a movement that essentially ceded state legislature involvement in the US Senate.
So what was left were state legislatures in the business of making state laws only to realize later how a federal monster had grown so large as to step on all state laws in effect bulldozing the 9th and 10th Amendments and subverting the 14th Amendment.
For the 9th and 10th Amendments to be respected in any federal action, it is IMPERATIVE that the state legislatures have a power in the composition of federal government. That power was envisioned by the Founders to be in the appointment of US Senators. The 17th Amendment vacated practically all state legislative influence in Congress and one of the many consequences we see today is that all State Laws are subjected to federal oversight or permit regardless of the enumerated powers.
With “conservatives” like George Will, who needs leftists?
George Will’s a “catcher”...
Beautifully said.
No wonder SCOTUS evidently believes it has a free hand to "say what the law is," completely outside of any constitutional limit.
BTW, went to your link. It seems I am disadvantaged in accessing texts there because I am not an alumna of Washington University, or member of some other privileged class. But I'll keep looking.
As you wrote:
Obviously memories of the nation’s Civil War weighed as a heavy influence in all matters of State Rights versus Federal Government and was a significant factor in the attitudes and leanings of people at the time in supporting a movement that essentially ceded state legislature involvement in the US Senate.I feel sure this observation is correct. What you aptly describe has led to a situation that absolutely must be corrected, if America is to survive as a nation under just and equal laws, by and with the consent of the governed.
Look at your local university or call a local professor of law who may be able to get you access. It is so insightful to read the old periodicals. You will come away thinking almost that you had been there in that time and know what people were thinking.
Also advanced libraries often grant license to local libraries to view what they have online. But a microfiche library may not yet have everything online.
Wish you luck!
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.