Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

One Chart to Rule Them All (For Obama to be right, the Declaration of Independence has to be wrong)
Doug Ross Journal ^ | April 27, 2012 | DRJ

Posted on 04/28/2012 12:05:16 AM PDT by CaptainKrunch

I spotted this chart (courtesy Larwyn, of course) at The Jacksonian Party. It explains a great deal about our current situation; one in which the people find themselves pitted against their elected officials.

Prior to 1902, Congress had never reached a 70% reelection rate.


Jacksonian argues that when the Senate became a directly elected body and no longer represented Statehouses, taxation and other federal usurpations of Constitutional bounds became rife. In other words, the federal government could and did use its power to begin punishing the states, regulating local affairs and interfering in every sort of arcane transaction.

That change triggered an ever-increasing federal budget that went far beyond national defense. Budget-busting initiatives, politically motivated in nature, purported to help retirees, the sick, the elderly and so on, while concentrating ever more power in Washington.

The federal government now consists of a body of lifetime bureaucrats, many of whom couldn't power a flashlight with all of their brainpower combined, who are reelected automatically through their use of federal tax funds. They reward, they punish, they anoint.


And they continue to aggregate more power at the federal level -- and to build their own personal wealth -- ignoring and flouting the law. Rangel, Feinstein, Frank, Reid, Waters, Conyers -- to name but a few -- have repeatedly thumbed their noses at financial disclosures, ethics violations, criminal complaints, FOIA requests, and the like.

If government worked as Obama and the National Socialist Democrats say it will, then why would we care about separation of powers? Why would we care about different levels of government?

Why would we care about the Constitution?

Why was this nation founded in the first place?

If government is so beneficent, so effective, so humane and compassionate, how is it that throughout all of human history, the great philosophers and thinkers were so fearful of it?

Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Montesquieu, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and so many more.

Were they all wrong about government and Obama right?

Were they all wrong about limiting, balancing, placing checks on government? Were they all wrong about liberty?

Is human history all wrong and Obama right?

Is human history all wrong and Nancy Pelosi right?

Is human history all wrong and Harry Reid right?

Do you really think Obama, Pelosi and Reid hold a candle to the greatest thinkers civilization has ever seen?

Because for Obama to be right; and for his party, now in the hands of the radical left, to be right; the Founders had to be wrong.

For Obama to be right, the Declaration of Independence has to be wrong.

For Obama to be right, the Constitution has to be wrong.

For Obama to be right, Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Montesquieu, Burke, Smith and the founding fathers all had to be wrong.

And so it is clear how all of this will end.

Government-run health care will be used as a tool by government officials. As these programs always are. It will be used to punish political enemies, to reward friends, to entice supporters and -- always -- to aggregate more power.

It must be repealed. It must be obliterated.


Hat tips: The Jacksonian Party, Thirty Thousand and Mark Levin.



TOPICS: History; Politics
KEYWORDS: 17thamendment; prozacchewables

1 posted on 04/28/2012 12:05:21 AM PDT by CaptainKrunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch
Jacksonian argues that when the Senate became a directly elected body and no longer represented Statehouses, taxation and other federal usurpations of Constitutional bounds became rife. In other words, the federal government could and did use its power to begin punishing the states, regulating local affairs and interfering in every sort of arcane transaction.

Before direct election Senators were kept in check by the state legislators who sent them. So state power was the balance against federal power. When we turned Senators into a part of the Federal government we lost that balance. That balance was what held the government to the 10th amendment. Just my opinion, I wish I had been around back then.
2 posted on 04/28/2012 12:28:08 AM PDT by Idaho_Cowboy (Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. II Corinthians 3:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

bttt


3 posted on 04/28/2012 12:32:04 AM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Idaho_Cowboy
"Before direct election Senators were kept in check by the state legislators who sent them. So state power was the balance against federal power. When we turned Senators into a part of the Federal government we lost that balance. That balance was what held the government to the 10th amendment."

Yep.  Excellent explanation.

 

4 posted on 04/28/2012 12:52:26 AM PDT by CaptainKrunch (Freedom is what's fair.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch
Our Framers debated who, the people or states, would serve as Senate electors on June 6th and June 7th 1787.

There were three reasons for state appointed Senators.

First and most important, the Framers did not wish to repeat the mistakes made by state governments in 1776-1777. Their populist constitutions left legislatures largely unchecked by either an executive or judiciary. State governments were rapidly headed down the road to majoritarian tyranny.

Second, the Brit system of commons and Lords was admired for its stability and judgment. How to replicate it in a land without subjects or hereditary nobles? Create artificial baronies via the States.

State appointed Senators preserved the federal mode of representation under the Confederation. Grafting it onto the Constitution would help smooth acceptance in what was expected to be a long and difficult trip through state ratifying conventions.

The bottom line is that with the 17th, we ignored the wisdom of our Framers, got high on the BS of progressivism, and fundamentally destroyed the balance of a wonderful system.

We suffer today from the same disease of 1776-1787, too much democracy. Without change, our republic is doomed.

5 posted on 04/28/2012 4:26:38 AM PDT by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

The direct election of Senators was just another step in the destruction of the Republic ,with the end goal a democracy of mob rule led by demagogues.

Did not Ben Franklin tell the woman who questioned what kind of government the Convention had given the new United States :”A Republic,madam,if you can keep it!”


6 posted on 04/28/2012 4:30:09 AM PDT by hoosierham (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Correct. The decline of America dates from 1913 which saw:
  1. Ratification of the 16th Amendment, establishing the Federal Income Tax, which gave the Federal government the power to fund umlimited expansion.

  2. Ratification of the 17th Amendment, ending the "Grand Compromise" which was the basis for the Constitution by allowing for direct election of Senators, thus effectively ending State Sovereignty.

  3. Passage of the Federal Reserve Act, turning over the economic future of the nation to the banking cartel.

We've been enjoying the consequences of those acts since.

7 posted on 04/28/2012 5:43:15 AM PDT by AustinBill (consequence is what makes our choices real)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
"Our Framers debated who, the people or states, would serve as Senate electors on June 6th and June 7th 1787.

There were three reasons for state appointed Senators.

First and most important, the Framers did not wish to repeat the mistakes made by state governments in 1776-1777. Their populist constitutions left legislatures largely unchecked by either an executive or judiciary. State governments were rapidly headed down the road to majoritarian tyranny.

Second, the Brit system of commons and Lords was admired for its stability and judgment. How to replicate it in a land without subjects or hereditary nobles? Create artificial baronies via the States.

State appointed Senators preserved the federal mode of representation under the Confederation. Grafting it onto the Constitution would help smooth acceptance in what was expected to be a long and difficult trip through state ratifying conventions.

The bottom line is that with the 17th, we ignored the wisdom of our Framers, got high on the BS of progressivism, and fundamentally destroyed the balance of a wonderful system.

We suffer today from the same disease of 1776-1787, too much democracy. Without change, our republic is doomed."

Post of the week.  I'm gratefull for the insight such knowledgable Freeprs such as you bring to the disscussion.

Too much democracy.  That is a heritical concept to a free people (inducing knee-jerk reactions), unless it takes in to account what that course of governemnt has actually wrought.  What we are now witnessing.  And as you conveyed, without change back to the framers original precpet of state appointed senators, we are doomed.

 

8 posted on 04/28/2012 1:25:03 PM PDT by CaptainKrunch (Freedom is what's fair.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson