Founders Quote - Mason on Senators

Patriot Post ^ | 1788 | George Mason

[Loud Mime]

"Those gentlemen, who will be elected senators, will fix themselves in the federal town, and become citizens of that town more than of your state."

--George Mason, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788

[clee1]

And so it has become....

[Jacquerie]

I prefer this warning from James Madison at the same convention. He responded to Patrick Henry’s charge that the Constitution’s enumerated powers would be usurped and our freedoms destroyed by a national government that would quickly seize all power.

Madison: “If the general government were wholly independent of the governments of the particular states, then, indeed, usurpation might be expected to the fullest extent. But, sir, on whom does this general government depend? It derives its authority from these governments, and from the same sources from which their authority is derived.”

Indeed. The 17th removed State agency from the federal republic. As predicted by Montesquieu, Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike, we slipped into an overwhelming, consolidated national government that oppresses both the States and us with raw force.

[Vaquero]

I have often said that there be a constitutional amendment that fixes all congressmen/senators in their districts/states and prohibits them from entering the beltway except on very rare invitations, no more than once or twice a year and only for 2 days each time. similarly they should not be allowed travel out of their state except for their own personal vacation, and never paid for on the government’s(the people’s)dime.

sessions of both houses of Congress will be held via teleconference.

[Loud Mime]

You can always be counted on for a thoughtful contribution.

[Loud Mime]

I would like to see Congress in session for only two months out of the year. It would be far easier to enforce.

[wita]

...And, those idiots, that wrote up the 17th did it in such a rush and without the influence of the law of unintended consequences, failed to note that Representatives had a two year term of office, NOT SIX, and on those grounds alone, the seventeenth should have failed ratification and we wouldn’t be faced with near impossible task of attempting to protect ourselves from a runaway federal government by and through state governments who are subject to lawsuit by the Government they gave the power to govern in the first place, and may I add:

The federal government does not have the power vested to sue those from whom it has received license. Eric Holder and the Justice Dept, and the President of the United States are engaging in Treason on even the contemplation of such action, and the States are in breach of their duty to “the People” in not withdrawing all power previously given to the federal government until such time as it restores the Republic as outlined in the founding documents to the limited and defined powers the Federal Government is entitled to.

[Resettozero]

The 17th removed State agency from the federal republic. As predicted by Montesquieu, Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike, we slipped into an overwhelming, consolidated national government that oppresses both the States and us with raw force.

For most of my life, I thought the 17th was a good idea. But a few FReepers' posts have lately precipitated my re-examination of my stance.

As I look around me at the people now in my neighborhood, in my precinct, my county and State, I can see plainly we are not the same people as we were in my youth. We do not select U.S. Senators very well now. I wonder if we did back then either.

Perhaps our Founders should have proscribed one six-year term only for each Senator. After their term expired, each could run again but only after sitting out a six-year period and remaining a full-time resident and not just property owner in the State they represented. Of course, the 17th cannot be changed peacefully now.

[Redleg Duke]

The 17th ammendment was that Socialist Bastard Wilson’s plan to gut the Republic and turn the USA into a “democracy” on the way to full socialism.

[Redleg Duke]

Our Founding Fathers set up the two houses of Congress to provide representation for the people and the states.

The 17th Amendment took away the states' representation in Federal Government and left them vulnerable to things such as unfunded mandates.

[Rummyfan]

George certainly got this one right, and it has become a lot worse since they became popularly elected.

[bigtoona]

This is definitely one of the biggest problems. Having these guys all together in Washington allows them to create clubs and cliques, collaborate, make deals etc. If they were forced to only meet a couple of times a year we wouldn’t have this mess. There would be less fraud and it would be harder for lobbyists to be effective.

In looking at states with good economies and conservative leaning governments, here are some things that appear to starve liberalism/progressivism and keep government small:

- Constitutional balanced budget law
- Legislatures meet sporadically
- Low state taxes overall (states can’t inflate currency so this works very well at keeping socialism at bay)

[ConservativeMan55]

bttt

[CenTex]

“In looking at states with good economies and conservative leaning governments, here are some things that appear to starve liberalism/progressivism and keep government small:

- Constitutional balanced budget law
- Legislatures meet sporadically
- Low state taxes overall (states can’t inflate currency so this works very well at keeping socialism at bay)”

You have discovered the real reason for why Texas is still Texas...

If you send a bunch of ‘Representatives’ to a Capitol year round, all they have to do is make laws and regulations and you end up with California,,,

[Jacquerie]

Gracias. (A little Spanish lingo)

[Para-Ord.45]

bm

[Jacquerie]

Yep, the only reason Reps do not have one year terms is the difficulty of 18th Century travel.

SIX YEAR TERMS?!!! . . . not a chance.

I would appreciate your comments on this earlier FR post:

The 17th Amendment, State Laws and the Independent Judiciary

[allmendream]

Reading a book on Madison and the fight for the bill of rights.

Some said that the Constitution needed no bill of rights because of the strictly limited and enumerated power of the Federal Government. Hamilton, for example, said that there was no need for there to be a 1st Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and of the press because the Federal government had no power to restrict speech or the press.

A few years later the Alien and Sedition Act did exactly that.

It was struck down on the grounds that it violated the 1st Amendment.

How much different things might be if it were struck down on the premise that the Federal government didn't have the power to do it.

[Loud Mime]

Throughout the writings of many founders you will see their disgust and emphatic warnings of governments of the popular character.

Madison’s Federalist Ten and George Washington’s Farewell Address spring immediately into mind, as well as Hamilton’s Federalist One.

There were several Federalist papers written on the necessity of the Senate being composed of a different character than the House. Now they are the same chambers, just with different rules.

The dangers of popular governments were even written about by Plato. It’s nothing new.

[Loud Mime]

One of Hamilton’s claims from Federalist 84 hit the nail on the head when he wrote that the Bill of Rights would lead to people claiming more rights than were enumerated.

We see a LOT of that now. Hamilton was correct.

Perhaps each item in the first ten amendments should have been preceded by RIGHT or LIMITATION OF GOVERNMENT.