Many people complain about the functioning of the government and what it means to daily life. Many find the U.S. Constitution to be out of date and dysfunctional. What would you do to bring the document up to date while still exerting controls on the scope of government in individual live and insuring that the 'tyranny of the majority' does not cull segments of the population or control their behaviour in ways inconsistent with equal justice under the law.
What would you make the constitutional basis for all the laws in our land to be penned on?
I will start with: The repeal of the 17th amendment.
There are several reasons for my dislike of this amendment and indeed how it came to be. If facts are right, it never should have been added to the constitution because it was never properly ratified by the states in the first place. Beyond that I believe that it is truly invalid because it denies States the representation that they are entitled under article 1 section 3 “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. This language was repealed by the 17th amendment but nothing was stipulated to change the statement in Article 2 Section4 which states that: The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
Many will say that place of choosing is still the state so no fowl. That however nullifies the meaning of the word “Legislature”. In addition, we have the words of Article 5 about amending the constitution which states that: and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. The key word here is “suffrage” or right to vote.
Again people will say that the states are represented by the people and “the people are the government”. While that may be true in some colloquial sense, elected representatives are in fact the government. That is borne out by the fact that many times the government does not execute the will of the people. The bank bailouts are a very good example of the difference between the will of the people and the will of the government.
Also the constitution is quite clear that it differentiates people and state on a couple of occasions:
1. the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
2. the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. – This is particularly telling given the contention and the supreme court ruling between ‘people’ and a state organized militia.
3. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,....
4. The full 9th amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
5. The full 10th amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
With respect to the word “suffrage” we can understand again the differentiation between the governments of the states (Legislature) and the citizens (People) of those states
In Federalist 59, Hamilton explains in summary:
Summary
Hamilton defends the provision in the Constitution for national control over the scheduling and regulation of elections to the House. He argues that if state governments were given control over national elections, then the national government would find itself at the mercy of states. Hamilton does recognize that state governments do have the right to control the elections of senators and that this creates the opportunity for states to delay or prevent the election of senators. However, he argues that this was a necessary compromise so as to maintain the federal principle of shared power between the states and the national government.
I contend that with this one amendment, used to fix a mouse size problem with a bear size solution, the principle of distributed government was destroyed and much of the dysfunction that we see today is as a direct result of states being removing from their role in the federal administration. This direction of course is intention on the part of two power structures.
1. Those who believe that only a directly elected democracy is ‘free’. I would contend that history has shown direct democracy to be a failure and pushing our country in that direction is a mistake.
2. Those who wish to bend an influence government are more than happy to have to only buy off 536 people rather than the legislatures of the various states who have different needs and interests....
More over, if the states had sent representative to the senate, Obamacare, not favored by many states and indeed the debt ceiling problem, would have been settled differently, some time ago, because states are finding out just how true the statement: "There is no such thing as a free lunch" really means.....
Because at his time only propertied males could vote Hamilton also feared an aristocracy in the states as if pertained to Senators. Something akin to the House of Lords in England. At Hamilton's time and even today a seat in the House of Lords depended on your position in the church or your hereditary peerage. Still today 26 members of that body are there only because of their position in the Church of England, 92 are still Hereditary seats. The first instance could not have been allowed in the US because of the doctrine of separation of the church and state. The second would have happened. So should the Senators still be appointed by the state legislators what's to say that the balance of the senate would not be the same as today. Which of course is why you bring this topic up. Now that we know because of the direct election of Senators as opposed to appointment by the individual legislatures you now can assume that the Senate would be heavily Republican since at that time the appointees were almost unanimously chosen from the party in power in the state. As we extended the right of the vote as it should be (government by the people has to include ALL the people) we now have contested elections for every government body. And this is the correct path to grant as many legal voters who wish to vote, a chance to vote for all their representatives not just some of them. Many people of your political bent TS like to say that I am not represented but you are. You may not like the winner of an individual election but you had your chance to voice your opinion and cast your vote, as it should be, your guy /gal just happened to lose. That does not make you unrepresented. Now I assume that recent events in NJ have got you thinking of this senate issue. The tea party would have loved to have that seat. But the voice of the people of NJ, all the people who took the time to vote decided pretty damn convincingly that they liked the direction that the late Frank Lautenberg was thinking so convincingly put the like minded Cory Booker in his seat. The people decided as it should be. So yes the constitution was , is and will be outdated in many respects. It has failed to change with the times and conditions of the country.
ReplyDeleteState militias? Even George Washington saw no value in state militias so requested a larger federal army to wage the Revolution. State militias were and economical way for a young poor country to defend itself against the powers that be in the 18th and 19th centuries. As the twentieth began and we fought the Spanish the value of State militias was again drawn into question as they generally performed poorly in the Spanish American war. You still have State militias, they are called the National Guard. Difference being today that they are trained soldiers who can make a difference when called upon to defend our country.
I don’t see how you get that someone elected to the senate could hope to assume a position of permanence given that legislatures change, over time, in direct response to peoples local interests. I would contend that they would more likely change because of the needs of the state than with a popular vote that continues to allow big money to guide local elections at the national level.
DeleteIt was intended that the state have representation and autonomy. While Williams Jennings Bryan was correct that state legislatures could be bought, could be corrupt, nothing beats the national revolving door that we have now. Besides, a simple term limit would have fixed your heredity problem... but then progressives? Federalists? Statist?, those such as yourself, would not have been able in one fell swoop to take so much power away from the states. You would probably say that those term restrictions placed on the president were a subversion of the will of the people too?
Contrary to your assumption, I have, for many years advocated the revocation of that amendment (among others). While I find it applicable to many recent actions of the federal government, it, for me, has everything to do with moving power away from the federal, which is a concentration of corruption and monies interests that some seem to believe this amendment addresses. These are the same representatives of the people who recently passed laws forbidding people from demonstrating (regress) within so many yards of their presence.....
“As we extended the right of the vote as it should be (government by the people has to include ALL the people) we now have contested elections for every government body. And this is the correct path to grant as many legal voters who wish to vote, a chance to vote for all their representatives not just some of them."
Your contention seems to indication that those who proxy for the voter in the interest of the state are somehow appointed by a state king... they are in fact elected in all 50 states because one of the provisions of the constitution is that ALL state constitutions are based on a republican model.
That’s the point Rick.... the constitution was intended and written to give REPRESENTATION at the federal level to TWO entities named in the constitution... The States and The People ... by virtue of republican governments in EVERY state.... it is still a government of the people.
One last word.... populations move... state resource and geographical needs are much more static.
Sunbelt states have had a huge population influx from the north. One can contend that those newly arrived people should have the same senatorial representation that they had in the state they came. They moved to a new state have little real knowledge of local problems, cultural and industrial differences, state programs or geographical claim issues. One must also look at why these people left the place they were from... was it bad state government that created a new paradise in another state... will their direct control of state interests create the same problems the left behind.
What we have lost as a nation is not the right of the states to suffrage in the senate. Each state still has two votes regardless of how those two individuals came about their seat. What we have lost is the right of the people to petition the congress to redress grievances. That died in 1848 with John Quincy Adams as he was the last and probably greatest proponent of the peoples right to petition Congress. Unfortunately in todays world it takes power and ultimately money to have your voice heard in the congress(lobbyists). This makes the vote of ALL the people even more important. But again unfortunately we as the American people whether dem or repub don't use that vote for change. We tend to elect the same people over and over. Whether a seat changes hands or not, if it does many times it is given back to the last person voted out during the next election. Apathy has a large part to do with that. No one is interested in Government service in today's world so we get the same cabal running for these elected offices over and over.
ReplyDeleteGerrymandering has destroyed our elective process. Although redistricting is necessary over time (the last state to embrace redistricting was Illinois where it had to be done for this reason, one rep in the Chicago area represented 900,000 people one in the SW corner of the state represented 120,000), redistricting should be done by an independent panel and based solely on the movement of population not the way they vote. Our congressional elections are a joke, a joke because you know today 350 members of the next House of Representatives as they all represent safe districts be they repubs or dems. This is a huge failing in our electoral system because if we want a change in 350 of Americas districts it ain't never gonna happen. So we get career politicians who are influenced by the few who can get their voices heard through their use of power and money.
Again, you equate the entities which are the various states (a sovereign institution) and the people. The constitution is quite clear to those who read it and don’t spend hours trying to bend its words that the federal government is in the business of representing two groups... the people and the states....
DeleteAs we saw in the past weeks... well, we didn’t see it so much because the national media seemed to ignore it. People, who could not make it to Washington for the bikers ride, or the veterans protest, did so at the several state capitols.... a place, geographically close to them. They are taken little notice of because states have no representation in Washington....
While I agree with you that apathy is the single most tenuous part of ‘we the people’ your thought that somehow we are better represented strictly at the federal level, IMHO, is flaws. Example. My mother was fairly knowledgeable about her politics. She wrote letters to senators and went to here local representatives office on issues that concerned her. She also wrote and talked with elected state officials but the one link that was missing was the ability for her to put pressure on a state representative, that lived very close to her, to effect the senator from that state..... National money elects them, not state issues...
Rick, I agree that the issue of gerrymandering is important and is a perversion of democratic elections. I also know that this was a subject that originated in colonial America. But it, in my opinion take co-equal placement against the power of national parties... particularly with respect of their ability to kill the voices of otherwise intelligent conversation. We can graphically see this in the last presidential election.... Ron Paul was far more popular then the RNC ever allowed to show and the national media was more than willing to cooperate....
Yes the money situation a situation exacerbated by the conservative championed Citizens United ruling. I think that money should not be poured into a state with a competitive election to influence the outcome. Money for any state election should come from entirely from within. But with Citizens United we now have out of state money pouring in for elections as minimal as board of education seats, (yes that did happen in Wake County NC). So your contention that national money controls elections is a bit of a boondoggle for those who think like you and supported Citizens United.(I do not know your opinion of that ruling, but many of your like minded brethren definitely championed the idea) It made the problem much worse then it ever was. It should not cost millions of dollars to be elected to a seat in the House. Hell it costs almost that much in some places just to be a STATE Senator. So again by extending our "right to free speech" by allowing unlimited money into the election process, conservatives have stretched and modernized a point of the constitution to fit a perceived need of trying not to be outspent in an election. But we only here about the liberal attempt to stretch and modernize the constitution. That's why I could never be a republican. Too much hypocrisy in the so called principles.
ReplyDeleteAs I wrote here when the conversation ... finished here
Deletehttp://mwamericanpolitics.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/californias-brown-signs-bill-permitting.html
The Citizens United case might have just as well been brought to the Supreme Court by the left. Citizens United challenged an existing federal law...... the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. It felt and the court upheld that the law as unconstitutional. While it opened up unlimited funds to campaigns, it did so equally as we have seen by the amount of money giving to Obama by the financial industry. By the way the case wasn’t necessarily about unlimited campaign funds... it was a movie about Hillary Clinton and the desire to advertise that movie on tv that sparked the case.
As well intentioned as the original law may have been... it was uncontitutional and infact it prevented people who might have had good financing from a limited source from ever competing against "The Big Two". Now while I think that we should get money out of campaigns, we must find a constitutional way of doing it.... and I think that would require an amendment...
equality that's just too funny especially if you are going to talk Finance. In 2008 much more money was given to Obama across the spectrum of industries then McCain, keeping in mind that McCain was a weak candidate. The exception being energy. By 2012 more money was given to the Republican Romney in every industry except Communications, Lawyers, and Labor. The Financial industry TS? This is the basis of your argument for Citizens United's equality of giving? Financial services gave the Romney campaign $68M dollars they gave the Obama people $20M. You do realize that is a 3.5/1 ratio and hardly screams equality. Where the dems clean up in fund raising always are two categories. Single issue voters (social stuff) and individual donations. So with citizens United the Repubs actually outraised the dems in 2012 but you can't buy elections with corporate donations alone. You also need the hearts and minds of the people. The repubs didn't do themselves any favors during the last few eeks on that score.
ReplyDeleteNow the movie, the timing was the issue. Under McCain Feingold the movie could not be presented inside of 30 days before the start of the primary or 90 days before a general election had she made it that far. But now under the law of Citizen's United decision Romney's campaign released a book touting him as late as Nov 4-5 2012 just a day or two before the election. Still didn't work.
I know we don't agree and I am definitely in the minority on this blog but the repubs are not reading the will of the country. They just are not. There are many things that we in the opposite party don't agree with and spending is one of them. The dems get that the repubs do too. Where were you guys when the Administration and the congress were running up the bills jan2001- jan 2006? nothing from you, because your taxes were cut which is possibly the single issue that the repubs have going for them cutting taxes. But even they in a super majority refused to squash spending in fact accelerated it. Where were you then TS? The bills were run up more during that time period more then anything Obama has done. You mention the great giving that the financial industry gave Obama 2012 which is not true. I read that as thanks for the bailout, a bailout that was bi partisan and a done deal before Obama ever took office. Why did the debt explode? Transparency. He brought it all on the books and what a mess we had.
Here's a case in point . I owe you $100. This week I got paid bought everything I need and had a surplus of $75 dollars. Well I'll just give that to my wife to stay in her good graces. But I really didn't have $75 to give her because I didn't pay you did I. This is in a simple form what Bush and the repub controlled congress did in 2001. Newt Ginrich and Bill Clinton worked very hard together to reign in spending and had the deficits at least in manageable shape and some predicted actual surpluses. George Bush said it's your money and I am going to get it back to you, didn't he. Well we had a debt of about 5.5 trillion at that time so was it really our money? Then we go to war as the Internet bubble crashes sending us into recession. But they went ahead with that scheme anyway didn't they. then we start a second unnecessary war. All fought on the credit card. Sorry a little off track.
I am sorry you feel outnumbered but it is only from your perspective that you are as persecuted as you feel. I am in many cases treated as ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’. Obviously those on the left here find fault in my views as I am painted with a broad brush dipped in deep red paint. I would say that you have allies of at least 2 others. On the other side, while I do not approve of certain social issues such as abortion and the lifting of gays as co-equals in relationship status, I, contrary to the views of most here to the right, do not believe that it is the right or responsibility of the state, federal in particular, to make laws with regard to social issues and defend their right to pursue happiness. I however, distain the social and legal crutch used by these groups that makes me a ‘hater’ for expressing my opinions about these subjects and uses law to force me to (beyond, race, sex and national origin) serve and hire in MY business. I am also at odds with many on this forum that think we should rule the world. Some, of course, won’t say that literally but at the end of the day, support the current foreign policies that do. I have no need for world dominance and the perverted notion that we need guns in over 180 countries to prevent attack on America and its territories would indicate to me that either we are a very greedy country or we have created a lot of people who.... ‘envy’ us. Given the number of years I listened to the US lecture other countries about respect for the sovereign borders of all nation states and respecting the will of the people to guide their own self determination, I find it extraordinary that we export our democracy and defend our ‘interests’ at the end of our political, economic and military guns.... Talk about a country that has lost its values. At any rate Rick.... we are all little huddled masses politically.
DeleteNow to the subject at hand..... No Rick, the fairness and equality I was talking about was for any independent candidate who didn’t have broad base financing but had a couple of deep pockets to fund the election... That is the fairness that I am talking about.... The monopolistic parties already have a lot of money and ability to raise it but an independent can be easily sidelined with laws like the poorly written, if ‘well intentioned’(?),2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Remember that the 2000 election debates exclude people like Ross Perot who was polling with 19%. Regardless of why it was passed and who it might have favoured, the one thing it did, as surely as if it was the planning for a ‘national debate of the candidates’, was to keep the little guy out of the game. Write the law correctly next time......
I see the 17th amendment in the same light. There are a lot of people in this country who have nothing but disdain and contempt for the U.S. Constitution and some even relish the thought that we might never have left the crown. Some are dyed in the wool communists; some are tyrants in the making and some want nothing more than a theocracy as this country’s governance. All of them are stopped by the literal reading and respect for our constitution. The founders were very cognisant of those traits in men. It is very evident in every federalist paper and anti federals paper. Federalist may have won on the day but that doesn’t mean that many predictions made by anti federalist haven’t come true and for the exact reasons they postulated.
DeleteThe problems at the state level were two fold.... 1) corruption and 2) inefficiencies and deadlocks in picking the senators. The prescription was to kill an important tenant of our republic... distributed government, and was equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bath water. On the surface, just like the bipartisan campaign reform act, it fulfilled the prescription of insuring two Senators we installed in the upper house from each state but just like eliminating the little guy served a purpose of ridding ‘their country’ of the scourge of ‘States Rights’. It just eliminated their status in our country and functioned neatly in line with the passage of another rather dubious amendment.... the 16th... which took total control of the money away from the government... and more importantly, the people.
By way of example I want to show you the importance of the ability for state government to pick representation in Washington. Imagine a state, sparsely populated and almost completely agrarian... The wealth of that state comes from its ability to grow and raise food.... the state legislature is concerned about how to maintain that income and protect the interests of those farmers and ranchers. They appoint senators who know and understand what is important to that states wealth and continued prosperity. A city springs up on the coast. This city becomes a port to ship all of food to destinations afar. Its population grows but the main source of wealth is the sparsely populated farmers.... no produce... no need for the port. Someone enacts the 17th amendment. The people of the city, by virtue of population elect senators that are naturally attentive to those who elected them. On the national level someone is proposing odorous regulations for farmers... the Senator does nothing because it doesn’t directly affect the constituents that elected them. They want better port conditions. The legislation passes without objection and the states farming industry and all of its wealth deteriorates as a result..... The state’s interests, as a whole, needed representation... the people of that city had representation in the House of Representatives. As industries come and go and populations shift, it is important that state interests are represented in Washington. If the industries that supported Detroit had some input in Washington rather than just the people with hands out that it supported, the Detroit story might have turned out differently.... Detroit is just one of hundreds of cities to the federalist in Washington... it is the bread and butter of an individual state and when it fails, the people, who, in part, helped it fail, move on to new cities to conquer...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAs for Detroit, Detroit had problems long before the bailout as you suggest by it being a "federalist" city. Detroit has been a hot bed of corruption and graft for years, and I blame the State of Michigan for it's eventual demise then I do anything federal. Michigan as the state of Detroit had every right to go into Detroit investigate and clean it up 20-25 years ago. But it didn't do it. there's state rights for you and state inaction. You know Detroit at one time was the auto capital of the world and a great American music city. As auto manufacturing jobs declined due to automation and the music business left Detroit for the east and west coasts the STATE of Michigan held responsibility to help Detroit diversify it's economy and create new and different industries by influencing and convincing industries that Detroit was a great place to locate new factories etc. Lord knows that it had the most advanced work force in the US at one time. But the city and the state waited and waited for a bounce back of the auto industry that never came because the jobs left more due to automation then competition. By the 2000's the world had left Detroit behind and that advanced work force no longer had the skills needed for the modern world. So that left Detroit with nothing to offer except a crumbling city and a shitty climate. The bailout wasn't so much to save only Detroit but the 100's of other American cities tied to GM and Chrysler in the manufacture of parts, pieces and bolts and nuts more then the actual assembly of autos. Your people so missed that. It wasn't just about GM it was about the million or so direct support jobs that would have been lost and that translates into how many additional lost indirect jobs.
Deletelet's reverse the situation, Keystone XL pipeline. your side says it will lower fuel prices, which it won't because the oil market is international and not controlled one iota by this country, and you cannot guarantee nor should you in a free enterprise system that the receiving refineries will lock that fuel into the American market. They will sell to the highest bidder as it should be. (see I am not against free markets). But more importantly the claim is 20,000 new jobs which it won't create. Until you start talking the peripheral jobs created. But the majority of these will be service jobs not good high paying jobs. The auto bailout saved thousands and thousands of good paying manufacturing jobs, not in the auto plants per say but in the peripheral plants that supply those jobs. Now I wasn't totally behind the bailout either for these two reasons, 1 the American investors in GM should have been protected and 2 Chrysler should not have been involved although I understand why it was to save even more jobs. Why should Chysler have been left out? Chysler at the time was owned by the private equity firm Cerebus. It was ailing when they bought it and did so at great risk. If we are going to bailout Chyrsler then we should be beholden to bailout every failing private business in the country if we operate on precedence which may happen some day. Cerebus assumed the risk and should have had to eat the results or resurrect it the best they could. I am really enjoying how conservatives won't buy a GM product but the Dodge Ram has suddenly become the vehicle to have. Chyrsler was a much worse decision then GM. But GM wears the face of the deal. Everything else about it is soon forgotten.
But TS that is the difference between a Senator and a House member, the senator represents the whole state regardless of the method which put him in his chair. A house member represents about 650,000 constituents, some a little less some a little more. A good Senator and we have few represent their whole state. To me what he does for his state, what state problems he handles or doesn't falls entirely on that Senator. A Senator we assume is a step up from a house member and can grasp the problems of the whole state whether it be inner city or rural, coast or inland, affects 1000 people or 1,000,000 people. It doesn't matter if he is appointed the original way or elected by todays method that is the scope of the Senator. If they can't do that then they need to be replaced. But again we come to the money and apathy. The apathy may very well be controlled by the money. See a guy like me , I would like to run but because of the financial requirements I won't risk it. See I can't afford to lose. You may feel the same.
DeleteNow let's look at another solution to our money problems in Washington. Term Limits. Our founding fathers would have been wise to include those in our election process, and if you really want to change our stagnant political system there is your amendment that would possibly do the most good. My suggestion would be 2 terms as a Senator and 6 as a Rep and no more then 15 total in both houses by any one person. Of course we would have to change how we elect reps to mirror the 1/3,1/3, 1/3, of the senate or we would always have a completely new body every twelve years and the would affect the continuity of the body. That would end the career politician, that would end a lot of the gerrymandering, (the second thing that needs to go), and open up some seats that possibly a third party could run for.
As for the 17th amendment, I think it is correct. I re iterate that you only favor the abolition of that amendment now because as it stands in the states the repubs could have what 64 senators today and possibly 3 or 4 of those could be tea party representatives. When Bush had his rubber stamp congress before 2006, again as with the spending where were you on the issue of the 17th amendment? Yep it didn't even enter your mind. Your party was in power so it wasn't an issue, my party was not but I never suggested to change the constitution to fit the needs of the party. Oh so many good reasons not to be a republican.
As for feeling outnumbered oh TS I don't I know I have a couple of like minded here but this blog is decidedly right leaning and I don't mind that. It is better then running an admiration society for one viewpoint. When we quit talking we quit solving our nations problems. Hey let's escalate that view to Washington.
DeleteI want to say that you have me pictured exactly how you want me to be... painted in red. It is apparent that you know little of what the Libertarians stand for and why. Now you may say that Libertarians are ‘right wing’ if you desire but the differences and reasons in ideology are quite distinct. The only republican I voted for in the last 20 years was Ron Paul... and he was republican in name only. You view my words and understand them as if they were translated by ‘The Liberals guide to your political enemy’. I do understand many liberal policies and in fact support the intent of most of them... I JUST DON’T AGREE ON THE METHOD.
A point of clarification: “As for Detroit, Detroit had problems long before the bailout as you suggest by it being a "federalist" city. Detroit has been a hot bed of corruption and graft for years, and I blame the State of Michigan for it's eventual demise then I do anything federal.”
I wasn’t inferring anything about the bailouts. My only point is that from the perspective of the federal government, Detroit, and in fact any city in America is but one of a constellation of cities and its problems can be overlooked without advocacy from the state. To the state a large city is a lifeline... to the federal government a cities problems disappear without any mechanism for the state to talk to the federal. Now I won’t disagree with you that Michigan made wrong choices but that makes the intent and function of a U.S. Senator no less important... a distinction you miss in this statement.
“But TS that is the difference between a Senator and a House member, the senator represents the >>>WHOLE STATE <<< regardless of the method which put him in his chair.”
No Rick, Only though the lens of the 17th amendment is that true. The intent of the constitution has The Senator represent the INTERESTS OF THEIR STATE... which are not necessarily a direct concern of the citizens of that state. Obviously my example in my last comment was not understood. Note that the constitution says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The constitution stipulates that the ‘Various States >> OR << the People’ as two separate entities.... The individual states are governed in accordance with the constitutions of that state which must stipulate a republican form of government and be subordinated to the U.S Constitution. At no point are the people left out of the governance as the legislators who pick the Senators were picked by the people to run state business.
Representatives were designed to be close to the people and therefore advocates for a small group of people.... Senators were meant to be advocates for the SUCCESS AND ADVANCEMENT of the state.... interests that the populous may or may not be totally aware of when voting, and issues that members of other states may not be aware of when drafting legislation without that advocacy. How can a Senator, elected by the people, recallable only by the people, possibly understand the macro problems of a state when they have no real contact or accountability to the state government?
This is where we see how people have been indoctrinated to believe that states are but mere administrative districts for the federal government... They were meant to be semiautonomous governments, controlled by the overriding law of the U.S. Constitution and protected by the federal government for a reason. The problem with your philosophy is that it ultimately leads to the belief that the constitution is irrelevant and U.S. borders define but a mere administrative district of a world government. Is that what you believe? Do you believe that states such as Texas gave up complete autonomy because it was a recognized nation state, to be sucked into the federal abyss? Why do you think that Porto Rico hasn’t jumped open arms into the control it would relinquish in our ‘progressive’ government?
The senator represents the WHOLE state regardless of how his seat is obtained. By appointment or by popular election. The seventeenth IMO takes politics out of the election of Senators and I again re iterate that it only matters to you now because with the increased amount of right leaning states including a couple that lean towards libertarian, you now see it as a problem because the progressives whom you dislike control one house of our congress. Where were you on this issue 2000-2006. Ya didn't care that's where you were.
DeleteTakes politics out? yes. For an example we have 18 states with a senator from each party. Of those if we still operated before the 17 amendment we would have at best 5 states with that configuration in the senate. We would have a 57-41 repub majority with 2 independents. I am sure that all libertarians and repubs would like that because you all have the same primary goal, starve the beast. The way it is today the people speak and there is a reason (although I don't know it) that some states have one senator from each party and some have democratic senators but republican house members. Some people like balance or checks and balances within the state delegation to protect their states rights and their states interests. We are a nation espousing government of the people by the people and for the people so yes it is right that the people's independent votes supersede the votes of a state legislature even if that legislature was seated by the vote of the people. Some people TS don't vote straight tickets. They vote for a dem senator a repub senator dem state legislature but repub governor. If you look at the composition of our state governments and federal reps it is a lot more common then you think. So is my voice not to be heard because I decide to split my ticket and vote for one of each yet the state sends two of the same party to Washington because one party has total control of a state. The 17th amendment strives to put the voice of the people first, as it should be.
About Ross Perot. he didn't run in 2000. He ran in 1992 and 1996. 1992 being the most successful for him and he did participate in the debates. (guess I'm a little older then you. Ross Perot also in his first unsuccessful but biggest campaign personally eschewed donations from anyone so campaign finance laws cannot be invoked pertaining to ability to raise money. he didn't want it. He did open his campaign for private donations by 1996 but he didn't gain the widespread support he enjoyed in 1992. I also remember his infomercials during that campaign allowed at that time and was akin to what the Hilary Clinton campaign wanted to do in the 2008 primary although by that time campaign laws forbade it, not because of the idea but because of the timing.
ReplyDeleteYou certainly like to poke holes in what I say but don't talk much about their intent or reasoning..... Your not debating the content, you like most politcal hacks look for a lack of symmetry in wording or just divert.
DeleteI said.... people LIKE Ross Perot who had such a large support base.... I know who I voted for and when thank you. As a matter of fact, to the point of my point, Ross Perot was blocked from the 96 debates precisely because of his showing in 92... To be specific Ralph Nader was shut out in 2000 although his support was less but the rejection was no less abysmal .... because of the Republican and Democratically controlled CPD which started bullying third party candidates in 1988 and started conspiring together in 1984 to block third party candidates.
I only equated the ability of the big two parties to block candidates of their choosing from the debates (generally less well capitalized ones) and the ability of that campaign law, deemed unconstitutional as being able to do the same damn thing.. Shisssh.... either you don't read, I can't write or you just enjoy being pretending to be obtuse...
But Ross Perot was not blocked by either party from full participation in the 1992 election. Nor was Ron Paul in the last. Ron Paul is a republican and he was given his chances to speak during every republican debate. He was just unable to convince a majority of his party that he was the best for the job and that he had the best ideas to change the direction of the country. And I don't dislike Ron Paul. I think he has a lot of great ideas, but then he has some really out there ones also, which I think hinders his ability to gain the widespread support it takes to be a viable 3rd party candidate.
DeleteAnd speaking of the Pauls when Rand Paul makes his bid for the presidency don't expect anything like his father's message. he will be strongly tea party to gain the nomination then track quickly to the center ala Mitt Romney when a general election takes place, because America is a centrist country, sometimes slightly right, sometimes slightly left but always towards the center. And as it stands today the democratic party nationally, is more center then the republican. That's why there is so much strife in the repub ranks, because the older more centrist members are trying to jerk the party away from extremism.
Libertarians like yourself have no hope not because of a two party system (the teas have proven that a major party can be infiltrated to a degree of paralyzing that party) but because many of the ideas are deemed too radical by the majority of Americans whose electorate heart lies BAM! in the middle.
Yes indeed.... purblind for sure. At least though out this ‘discussion’ you have revealed that real nature of you politics and indeed the real reason the 17th amendment exists at all. Never miss an opportunity created by a crisis, you lefties. People like you cause me to speak badly of folks on the left. Most are truly ignorant of the damage they do but some know well... I hope you are the former but suspect you are part of the ‘coalition of the willing’. My political acuity started relatively early in life, when I took government in school, my mother, a lifelong, but pragmatic Democrat, took me through the constitution Article and section. It was she who introduced me to the “shenanigans” in the dubious passage of both the 16th and 17th amendments. So, I have been thinking about the purpose and intent of the constitution for a while... much longer than any current political advantage republicans may or may not have on the matter.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is, the 17th amendment receives very little serious talk among republicans. It has never been introduced as a subject for a constitutional convention. Only now are people starting to wake up to the false choices presented by Democrats and Republicans. They are two sides of the same coin and the dichotomy of choice presented on election day is really no choice at all.
I really love the arm waving during Bush jr.’s time in office.... Neocon this and Neocon that.... all but a few have any idea who the ‘neocons’ are and where they came from politically.... Vote for a Republican and get more empirialism which costs more money and removes individual freedom and rights or vote Democrat and get more theft by distribution which costs more money and removes individual freedom and rights. Neither gives a choice for a freedom loving people and people are starting to wake up to that fact. They are getting smart enough to smell out the people like Cruz...
Your 'BAM in the middle' is a place where both political parties are guiding people. It looks fair... safe and responsible. I used to call myself a centrist until I realized that the ‘center’ was a political void. A place where people go to hide when they can’t make a choice between evil left and evil right. People are waking up.
At least you are honest that the 17th amendment was about killing states rights and not about solving the problem for which it was, supposedly created. You are honest when you say that someone needs to kill the ‘beast’.... at least you recognize it by its correct name.
People just need to become aware.... aware that ‘BAM in the middle’ gets them nothing but closer to the world that statists wake up each day to create..... a world without a written constitution, where the magna carta is no longer of relevance. The establishment is working hard to snuff out people who are causing problems for the cause.... like home schoolers; like veterans who served the country and the constitution and not the government; Like hard working self sufficient individuals who believe in charity and responsibility. The word is getting out and your drone is being tuned out.
But its not for lack of trying .... Obama has spent 5 times more on transfer payments than he has on education, transportation and nasa.... so much for teaching, infrastructure and science.... the only way to win is to hobble people at their knees and come to their rescue. Which reminds me... did you study that video Obamas Rose Garden of the fainting woman? Now, I know I am a cynic... I know that I don’t like Obama but it looked pretty contrived... b grade acting for sure. Why can’t he just be honest... why can’t you?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnd just what is it that I am being dishonest about. You know very little about me so at the top of your response you have to resort to name calling? Centrist doesn't have to be an empty place for everyone just because it is you. Centrist can also be that I agree with the fiscal responsibility that this country has to develop and maintain but I don't agree with you on how we get there. In another thread Pfunky has it right we got to this point in decades and it will take several decades to fix without destroying the country and without destroying the reputation of our country. And I am centrist because I also agree with the need to help those less fortunate whether through private contribution ( and there is not nearly enough of that) or government help and I believe in equality for all regardless. Regardless. And when I say equality I mean total equality. Therefore I come down somewhat in the center, fiscally more conservative but socially very liberal. So my friend don't just name call because you were wrong about Ross Perot and you were wrong about Ron Paul. They were given their chance to speak they just couldn't get enough support.
ReplyDeleteLike I said, I thought I was a centrist when I finally realized that being a centrist was ALWAYS a compromise. Now you will stay... “What’s wrong with compromise?” As I have said dozens of times before, compromise with the left is NEVER a zero sum game... It is always increasing spending and it is always raising taxes. You said that you agree with pfunky that it took decades to get here. This path as been the blind and relentless push of progressivism.... I will not be stopped by business as usual compromise. No one on this board professes that anything can be fixed quickly but the attitude must be right. The left will say we need to raise taxes to fix the problem. Taxes when Reagan left office were higher than when he went in, Bush sr lost his second term because he raised taxes and Clinton had the highest post war tax increase of all.... but for every tax of 1, the left proposes spending of 5.... it will never be fixed until we realize that we as a nation are fiscally broke and continuing to use a credit card is a disaster. You do realize that the debt service today as about 50 billion less than it was in 2006 but the debt to be serviced is considerably higher? If interest rates were not affected by the fed, debt service would double. People like to blame capitalism for all the worlds ills.. how can it be capitalism when the government distorts markets and plays favorites.
DeleteYou talk about caring for the less fortunate whether it be through private contribution (Which you indicate that there isn’t enough of) or the government. Why in the world do you think that charity run hospitals are out of business? Do you think that they were run out of business by the government regulations and the 1986 EMTALA? Do you think it helps when the government puts a tax penalty on a charity run hospital if it doesn’t conform to Obamacare and further penalties if it treats someone who is uninsured? The EMTALA and other federal incursions into something they should have left to professionals, killed the charity hospitals and started the cost shifting and insurance practices that have even prices small, otherwise competitive hospitals out of business and raise medical costs to 10 times that of identical treatment in other countries.
As far as your being socially ‘very liberal’..... again, we have a very different view of the way society dispenses liberty.... Liberty is organic... not legislated. Society can and must be allowed to reject behavour that the society sees as inappropriate or harmful. Liberals have skewed this process.. They seek to codify in law behaviour for the future, even though the readily admit the society changes. At the same time they force people who disagree to hire, serve and live with people they do not like. They also work to quiet opponents with laws and put up pictures of burning crosses to condemn anyone who disagrees....
“Law is not a body of commands imposed upon society from without, either by an individual sovereign or superior, or by a sovereign body constituted by representatives of society itself. It exists at all times as one of the elements of society springing directly from habit and custom. It is therefore the unconscious creation of society, or in other words, a growth.” James Carter 1890
Legislators are legislation-makers; they are not lawmakers.... and a society’s direction is the creation of its people, day to day, not a function of legislation.
Oh yes.... one last thought, I was not wrong about Perot or Paul.... republican and democratic hand puppets were. I know this is the case because you actually believe that both had a fair shake at becoming president. It is obvious that you didn’t really pay attention to the Ron Paul candidacy in this last presidential cycle.... anyone who did would have been outraged by the real political process that keeps people happily supporting their party.
Why is it that it's always the leftists spray painting hate speech or lighting crosses? Because the righties don't do that.
ReplyDelete