Such an excellent post until you came to that absurd and tried-and-failed conclusion.
Posted on 06/07/2013 8:39:41 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Conservatives tout the importance of the traditional family to our society. Father, mother, children, the family is the building block, the foundation of society. This isn’t news to any civilization. Radical Leftists tell us it doesn’t matter. A family is whatever one or two or more people of any sex wish it to be. After almost fifty years of the Great Society, in which many fathers were replaced with a monthly stipend to mothers, we conservatives know the results. Directionless, violent and barbaric boys grow into felonious men. Absent the proven institution, the structure of traditional marriage, women still have babies, but our culture and civilization suffer. We know this.
Focus on the importance of structure, and apply it to political science, to American history.
In 1776, thirteen American colonies declared independence. Just a few months before the last great battle of the ensuing war, in March 1781, they formalized a quasi-government under the Articles of Confederation. By 1787, it was clear enough the Union was dissolving. The structure of the Articles was insufficient to provide good government. Twelve of the thirteen states sent delegates to a convention to correct its inherent, structural problems. After a summer of effort, they devised a new plan ratified by the people of eleven states within a year.
Structure. There was little difference between the morals and attitudes of the people who drafted the Articles and the Constitution. Indeed, some of the same men who signed the Articles, also signed the Constitution. What changed was the structure of the American government.
The American Union, teetering back on its heels under the Articles, thrived when released by the Constitution. The more perfect union of the Constitution set the stage for freedom and prosperity. A largely agricultural backwater in 1789 grew to become a solid second tier industrial and economic powerhouse in less than a hundred years.
Structure. Just as non-traditional “families” are unnatural and destructive, the Articles of Confederation demonstrated that governments not sufficiently divided into their natural functions were inherently unstable and ineffective. The American Constitutional Union, like the timeless husband/wife/children familial structure, recognized the natural structure of free government.
That natural structure meant separation of powers, and not just the civics class horizontal legislative/executive/judicial. The first, and most important separation was the vertical division of powers between the federal government and states, as enforced by a Senate of the States. In this all important structure, state participation meant a federal government and court system well-confined to enumerated powers and one that respected the Tenth Amendment.
Structure is destiny. The 17th Amendment removed the states from the federal government. In their stead, it created another popularly elected body. Make no mistake, the new Senate beginning in 1913 is a monster, a political Frankenstein that combines the worst of long termed popularly elected politicians with incredible power tied to the executive branch.
As the modern Left redefined and corrupted the natural order, the structure of family, the Left of a hundred years ago did the same to federated, free government. Restoration of republican freedom is impossible without rebuilding the Framers’ structure, and that requires a Senate of the States. The 17th must go.
17th Amendment ping!
Thanks!
Is that why I feel less and less functional/competent every year?
Such an excellent post until you came to that absurd and tried-and-failed conclusion.
Does this person make anti-17th vanities on a weekly basis? Jeez.
Thinking it’s a good idea is one thing but pimping it this hard? I just don’t get it.
Hello boys.
What have Republicans recently done for our republic? Where is your nonsense about corrupt state assemblymen?
Yeah, this person knows the Framers got it right.
With passage of the 17th, I question the need to even have a senate.
This is a serious question that I’m asking.
What is the purpose of the senate, now?
Mark Levin recently asked the same question. He didn't know. Maybe tweedledee or tweedledummer have the answer.
Good afternoon, Jacqx.
What have Democrats done for our republic ? Better, yet... why do you want to permanently gift them 40 or more seats ?
Given that they didn’t live 100 years to see what the body became, that’s a conclusion you can’t make. Fortunately, that’s why the framers gave us amendments to change what WASN’T working.
That’s a disingenuous and stupid question.
I have posted about eight vanities that looked at why the framers divided power between the states and feds, what federalists and anti-federalists had to say about government, and the ramifications of the 17th. I won't repeat any of it.
Tell me how the 17th better secured our liberty.
What is stupid about asking the purpose of the Senate? The 17th made it a redundant, popularly derived institution, but of a dangerous six year term for members rather than two. A political Frankenstein.
Eight vanities ? It seems like you and your crew trot this non-starter out at least weekly. We’ve debated this subject endlessly. Personally, I wish the Senate could function exactly as the framers envisioned (and as you do), but in practice, it didn’t work that way. They didn’t jealously protect the 10th amendment as they should’ve, and descended into a corrupt and unaccountable institution. Repealing the 17th won’t magically restore that body into something it never really was.
“...That’s a disingenuous and stupid question...”
-
The question was neither disingenuous nor stupid.
Have you no answer?
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.