Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: fieldmarshaldj

Sure there was corruption, but look into the scale of corruption pre- and post-1913. Congress has spent so much money in the past few years that we are over $100 trillion in debt, considering unfunded liabilities. 100 years ago, the national debt was $2.9 billion. Adjusted for inflation, that’s only $65 billion in today’s dollars.

You portray the state legislators as incompetent, but I say that the U.S. would be far better off picking 535 names at random from the phone book to run Congress - much less legislators that govern states that (compared to the federal government and excluding California and Illinois) are in relatively good shape.

And the campaign in favor of direct election of senators was a conspiracy - a democratic conspiracy. We aren’t a democracy, but a constitutional republic. There are democratic elements to our society, but pure democracy strips the rights of the individual just as easily as a tyrant - it’s just a matter of procedure.

Granted, by its passage, the 17th Amendment became as legitimate as the rest of the Constitution. There is nothing wrong with having a logical debate on whether the 17th Amendment is the best path forward for society.

Based on history and human nature, the amendment paved the way for corruption and special interest influence on a scale that was impossible to reach under the original system.

But when you strip the state’s ability to instantly recall U.S. senators that are not legislating in the state’s interests, you undermine the federalist system of shared powers between the state and federal government, and essentially create a new - and more corruptible - government.

And it’s “As one WHO has...” not “As one WHOM has...” If you’re going to insult the author, at least use proper grammar.


27 posted on 02/08/2013 5:21:22 PM PST by FatMax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: FatMax
"Sure there was corruption, but look into the scale of corruption pre- and post-1913. Congress has spent so much money in the past few years that we are over $100 trillion in debt, considering unfunded liabilities. 100 years ago, the national debt was $2.9 billion. Adjusted for inflation, that’s only $65 billion in today’s dollars."

And how, by moving the Senate even further to the left (which is what the 17th would do), would that remedy this horrendous situation ?

"You portray the state legislators as incompetent, but I say that the U.S. would be far better off picking 535 names at random from the phone book to run Congress - much less legislators that govern states that (compared to the federal government and excluding California and Illinois) are in relatively good shape."

I'd rather have 535 people chosen that run a business and meet a payroll. You could just as easily choose 535 people that are parasites. But this is a flight of fancy, in any event.

"And the campaign in favor of direct election of senators was a conspiracy - a democratic conspiracy. We aren’t a democracy, but a constitutional republic. There are democratic elements to our society, but pure democracy strips the rights of the individual just as easily as a tyrant - it’s just a matter of procedure."

I know what we are. And as I said above, unless you are prepared to begin to enact basic requirements on precisely which individuals should be allowed to cast votes (which I think is an excellent idea) to meet what was advocated by the Founders, you're not only not going to get a better Senate, you will make it worse.

"Based on history and human nature, the amendment paved the way for corruption and special interest influence on a scale that was impossible to reach under the original system."

It was already happening before the 17th.

"But when you strip the state’s ability to instantly recall U.S. senators that are not legislating in the state’s interests, you undermine the federalist system of shared powers between the state and federal government, and essentially create a new - and more corruptible - government."

The kind of recall you speak of, more of a gentleman's agreement as an elected official, stopped in the early 19th century. In rare few instances, once you got your 6-year term, you served it out, unless the Good Lord called you home.

33 posted on 02/08/2013 5:47:44 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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