Posted on 02/06/2015 1:16:27 PM PST by Jacquerie
No, but they included a provision for amending the constitution as the people felt it needed.
Guess I should update it, eh?
More than General Lee’s Army died that day....
“It is the very imperfections of man that require government to secure natural rights.”
And how has that been working out?
I guess its human nature to take a hard look at failure, then decide to do the same damn thing but with twice the intensity, and stand around and wonder why it didn’t work.
“More than General Lee’s Army died that day....”
Yup. And you’re sneered at as a throwback if you point that out.
You think the amendment process reflects popular will?
Getting two-thirds of the states to call a Convention, then passing amendment proposals out of the Convention, and then getting three-fourths of the states to ratify the amendment, is a "popular will" process to you?
-PJ
“That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men.”
I’ll assume you are familiar with the quote.
And likewise i’ll assume that you’re familiar with the rest of the sentence.
Thanks for the best explanation I’ve heard on this issue.
Don’t state lawmakers understand that probably most of the vote-winning federal funding that they receive for various projects Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers?
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
In other words, most of the federal dollars that the states receive are arguably state revenues which the corrupt feds stole from the states by means of constitutionally indefensible federal taxes.
Very well written. You are the author, I presume.
_________________________________________________________________
I think the easiest way to answer your question as to why the state representation suffers would be to look at the way we elect the president through the electoral college instead of by popular vote and the reason we do so. Having the 17th amendment in place for the states is like getting rid of the electoral college for the presidential elections. If not for the electoral college a very few states with large populations would control the election of the president. The dense populations in large cites in California, New York Etc. would literally determine who is president. You can see what a disaster that would be.
With the framers original design, at the state level the state legislature acts like the electoral college. It prevents the large cities from choosing the senator. As we all know the large cities are controlled by very few usually heavily left wing politicians. So with the 17th in place only the large cites of a state are truly represented in the senatorial elections. The smaller districts of the state are stuck with whoever the big cites choose. Furthermore once a Senator is elected they have but just a few palms to grease in their state to virtually guarantee perpetual reelection. This is the reason we have 40+ year entrenched senators.
Thank you. I’m a supporter of Article V and still learning. Great article.
Well, it’s the procedure the founders established.
And how's that going?
<>And how’s that going?<>
Quite well. Thank you.
We should also keep our eye on the ball, meaning the purpose of government, which is to act with our consent, AND secure our unalienable rights. Post 17A government doesn't do either. We are very close to one man rule, complete collapse of our once constitutional order.
Representative democracy itself isn't the goal. The Framers would freak out at the sight of 1) Two popularly derived Houses, and 2) Popularly elected politicians with six year terms.
Fundamental to republican government is representation of its members. In republics of old, this was limited to the people. Our new confederal republic acted on two entities, the people and states, and each had a house in the law making body. In order to remain consistent with republican theory, every clause which dealt with states should have also been removed from the constitution along with the 17th Amendment. That way, the constitution would have still acted strictly on the only entity it governed, the people.
It makes as much sense under our constitution to remove reps of the people as it did to removed reps of the states. None. Removing the states from the senate, yet leaving a constitution behind which still acted on the states, set up internal contradictions we live with today. The 17th left behind a federal constitution without a federal government!
We can thank the 17th for wild judicial rulings which violate our 9th and 10th amendment sovereignty, and a congress which has plenary rather than enumerated powers.
I’ve read similar assertions about the Articles of Confederation dozens of times at FR. Assertions only, devoid of elaboration.
I’d welcome a post, vanity or otherwise, which defends the AC on its merits, without using the usual straw man, “it was better than the Constitution.”
If you can stand behind your claim with an FR post, please ping me.
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.