Posted on 08/03/2013 4:16:25 PM PDT by Jacquerie
Picture in your mind’s eye a day when GOP senators ignore the only slightly veiled public threats of Obama, and the rants of a corrupt media. Imagine a Democrat senate judiciary committee chairman who privately, quietly lets the president know that any nominee with the slightest history of opposition to the 10th Amendment will be rejected for a seat on the federal bench. These are all possible.
Among the senate’s unique duties is that of consenting or not to presidential secretarial, judicial and ambassadorial nominees. As opposed to what the left-media and Dingy Harry would have us believe, the senate doesn’t exist to rubber-stamp and legitimize whatever Obama wishes to do. The constitutional appointments clause is there to make sure that unlike King George III, our president does not appoint unqualified hacks loyal to him and him alone. It is there to make sure a second set of eyes scrutinize the character and suitability of presidential nominees.
But if that is so, if the senate is to rationally and impersonally examine and judge the suitability of nominees, why do they consistently consent to progressives, to radical left judges hostile to the constitution?
The answer is that as opposed to the constitution of 1787, today’s constitution encourages our trend toward majoritarian despotism. As head of his party, the president has enormous influence over the disbursement of senatorial campaign funds to party members. It is why senate democrats can be trusted to vote exactly as they are told to by Obama’s assistant, senator Harry Reid. GOP senators also work in fear. They must gauge the effect a frenzy of hyped up media opposition could have on their reelection. In short, the senators of the party of the president are his tools, while the senators of the opposing party fear crossing the popular culture. Left out of their joint concern is the long term welfare of the people and states they supposedly represent. Senators more concerned with Obama and his media, cannot dispassionately perform their constitutional duties.
Over the generations, Americans have become ignorantly comfortable with this corruption of republican government. Low information voters reflexively think democracy is just swell, when in actuality, too much of it is toxic to our freedoms. Our framers’ system featured only one popularly sourced institution, the house of representatives. For a hundred years we have had two such bodies, and if progressives get their way, presidential elections will soon be popularly derived as well.
An over-abundance of democracy is strangling what remains of our republic. It is time to step back and look objectively at what ails us. The source of our sickness, the open and self-inflicted wound that welcomed the bacteria of democratic majoritarianism to grow in a once healthy body politic is the 17th Amendment. If we are to possibly return to republican freedoms, senators must once again be immune from popular emotions and demagogic presidents. The 17th must go.
17th Ping!
I think they are working on it. But not in a helping manner.
“...As head of his party, the president has enormous influence over
the disbursement of senatorial campaign funds to party members...”
-
That does not explain the motivation of the opposition party.
Why is this in “chat” where no one will see it?
>>That does not explain the motivation of the opposition party.
Two sentences later:
GOP senators also work in fear. They must gauge the effect a frenzy of hyped up media opposition could have on their reelection. In short, the senators of the party of the president are his tools, while the senators of the opposing party fear crossing the popular culture.
WHAT AMERICANS USE TO KNOW ABT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
The first several generations of Americans understood that the Declaration of Independence was the ultimate states’ rights document. The citizens of the states would delegate certain powers to a central government in their Constitution, and these powers (mostly for national defense and foreign policy purposes) would hopefully be exercised for the benefit of the citizens of the "free and independent" states, as they are called in the Declaration.
The understanding was that if American citizens were in fact to be the masters rather than the servants of government, they themselves would have to police the national government that was created by them for their mutual benefit. If the day ever came that the national government became the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, then Americans would live under a tyranny as bad or worse than the one the colonists fought a revolution against.
As the above quotation denotes, the ultimate natural law principle behind this thinking was Jefferson’s famous dictum in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever that consent is withdrawn the people of the free and independent states, as sovereigns, have a duty to abolish that government and replace it with a new one if they wish.
This was the fundamental understanding of the meaning of the Declaration of Independence – that it was a Declaration of Secession from the British empire – of the first several generations of Americans. As the 1, 107-page book, Northern Editorials on Secession shows, this view was held just as widely in the Northern states as in the Southern states in 1860- 1861. Among the lone dissenters was Abe Lincoln, a corporate lawyer/lobbyist/politician with less than a year of formal education who probably never even read The Federalist Papers.
==================================================
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE PREAMBLE “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...”
What came after the Declaration of Independence was the "bill of particulars" against the colonial ruler--King George III ---that justified the declaration and subsequent colonial rebellion.
“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance,” reads one of Jefferson’s indictments against the king.
(Amply describes the Obama juggernaut against Americans.)
Hear here! These so called senators are nothing more than peoples’ representatives on steroids with a snotty attitude locked in for six year terms. Let’s get back to The Constitution!
Checks And Balances—The Constitutional Structure For Limited And Balanced Government-—to guard the people’s liberty against government power. The Constitution was devised with an ingenious and intricate built-in system of checks and balances to guard the people’s liberty against combinations of government power. It structured the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary separate and wholly independent as to function, but coordinated for proper operation, with safeguards to prevent usurpations of power. Only by balancing each against the other two could freedom be preserved, said John Adams. Another writer of the day summarized clearly the reasons for such checks and balances:
•
“If the LEGISLATIVE and JUDICIAL powers are united, the MAKER of the law will also INTERPRET it (constitutionality).
•
Should the EXECUTIVE and LEGISLATIVE powers be united... the EXECUTIVE power would make itself absolute, and the government end in tyranny.
•
Should the EXECUTIVE and JUDICIAL powers be united, the subject (citizen) would then have no permanent security of his person or property.
“INDEED, the dependence of any of these powers upon either of the others ... has so often been productive of such calamities... that the page of history seems to be one continued tale of human wretchedness.” (Theophilus Parsons, ESSEX RESULTS)
What were some of these checks and balances believed so important to individual liberty? Several are listed below:
•
HOUSE (peoples representatives) is a check on SENATE - no statute becomes law without its approval.
•
SENATE is a check on HOUSE - no statute becomes law without its approval. (Prior to 17th Amendment, SENATE was appointed by State legislatures as a protection for states’ rights - another check the Founders provided.)
•
EXECUTIVE (President) can restrain both HOUSE and SENATE by using Veto Power.
•
LEGISLATIVE (Congress - Senate & House) has a check on EXECUTIVE by being able to pass, with 2/3 majority, a bill over President’s veto.
•
LEGISLATIVE has further check on EXECUTIVE through power of discrimination in appropriation of funds for operation of EXECUTIVE.
•
EXECUTIVE (President) must have approval of SENATE in filling important posts in EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
•
EXECUTIVE (President) must have approval of SENATE before treaties with foreign nations can be effective.
•
LEGISLATIVE (Congress) can conduct investigations of EXECUTIVE to see if funds are properly expended and laws enforced.
•
EXECUTIVE has further check on members of LEGISLATIVE (Congress) in using discretionary powers in decisions
regarding establishment of military bases, building & improvement of navigable rivers, dams, interstate highways, etc., in districts of those members.
•
JUDICIARY is check on LEGISLATIVE through its authority to review all laws and determine their constitutionality.
•
LEGISLATIVE (Congress) has restraining power over JUDICIARY, with constitutional authority to restrict extent of its jurisdiction.
•
LEGISLATIVE has power to impeach members of JUDICIARY guilty of treason, high crimes, or misdemeanors.
•
EXECUTIVE (President) is check on JUDICIARY by having power to nominate new judges.
•
LEGISLATIVE (Senate) is check on EXECUTIVE and JUDICIARY having power to approve/disapprove nominations of judges.
•
LEGISLATIVE is check on JUDICIARY - having control of appropriations for operation of federal court system.
•
LEGISLATIVE (Peoples Representatives) is check on both EXECUTIVE and JUDICIARY through power to initiate amendments to Constitution subject to approval by 3/4 of the States.
•
LEGISLATIVE (Senate) has power to impeach EXECUTIVE (President) with concurrence of 2/3, of members.
•
The PEOPLE, through their State representatives, may restrain the power of the federal LEGISLATURE if 3/4 of the States do not ratify proposed Constitutional Amendments.
•
LEGISLATIVE, by Joint Resolution, can terminate certain powers granted to EXECUTIVE (President) (such as war powers) without his consent.
•
It is the PEOPLE who have final check on both LEGISLATIVE
and EXECUTIVE when they vote on their Representatives every 2 years, their Senators every 6 years, and their President every 4 years. Through those selections, they also influence the potential makeup of the JUDICIARY.
It is up to each generation to see that the integrity of the Constitutional structure for a free society is maintained by carefully preserving the system of
checks and balances essential to limited and balanced government. “To preserve them (is) as necessary as to institute them,” said George Washington.
Footnote: Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part III: ISBN 0-937047-01-5
http://www.nccs.net/articles/ril31.html
That separation began with a division of power between the States and Federal government, not with the division of legislative, judicial and executive departments within the Federal government.
Because of the 17th, which destroyed vertical separation of powers, the three federal branches were allowed to consolidate into one, . . . just as the framing generation feared.
Ahhhhh, someday I will...
Excellent article
---------
Where do you recommend it be posted?
Agree. I thought JimRob had started a FreeperEditorial forum for idea oriented vanities.
I am obviously wrong.
Unfortunately, the biggest problem is the 16th Amendment.
As long as the federal government controls 25% of the GDP, special interest groups will pore massive amounts of money into Senate campaigns. No matter how they’re elected (with a few exceptions), Senators are bought and paid for by the monied elite.
I misread chat as chart… and immediately thought of this picture:
IMHO, getting rid of the 16th and 17th would be a great start.
After that, I’d think the 14th needs some modifications, so not every mother who comes here while in labor, gives birth to a US citizen.
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.