Posted on 02/06/2015 1:16:27 PM PST by Jacquerie
A common solution at FreeRepublic for the ills of our nation is to just enforce the constitution we have. Elect enough Tea Party conservatives and freedom will be restored.
From the moment of our independence, the first question, as posited by Mercy Warren was “what government consistent with the Declaration of Independence can be designed by men too proud for monarchy, too poor for nobility, and it is to be feared, too selfish and avaricious for a virtuous republic?”
Republicanism was in our blood. Despite the efforts of the British Crown, all of the states had evolved from quasi-republican colonies. There was no other choice. The challenge was how to secure republican liberty in a society composed of selfish and avaricious people.
The Declaration specified two criteria for free government. It must be derived from the consent of the governed, and second, it must secure our natural rights. But, there is a natural tension between the two, for like ancient city-states, consent of the governed can be achieved via simple majority rule in a single assembly possessed of legislative, executive, and judicial powers that ignores the minority and jeopardizes their rights. The task for the framing generation was to account for both criteria such that they complimented rather than contradicted each other.
For Mercy Warren, like many freepers, the answer was found entirely in religious belief and virtue. To throw the checks of conscience aside, to let avarice and ambition rule, was to doom America to degeneracy and certain failure.
The framers of a decade later had a different take. Being practical, political men, many of whom served in the confederation congress, they rejected Mercy Warren’s reliance on religion and virtue, the “weaker springs of the human character.” In fits and starts and close calls during the summer of 1787, they developed and relied on the structure of their design to channel and direct ambition and avarice so that they would serve rather than destroy free government.
In their quest to secure liberty, the framer’s plan went far beyond the long recognized horizontal division of power into legislative, executive and judicial functions. Their keystone was the vertical separation of power in which national authority, sparingly doled out in enumerated powers, with the remainder left among the states, was enforced by a senate of the states. They did not rely on what James Madison termed “parchment barriers” alone, such as a Bill of Rights to secure liberty. With power so well divided, so chopped up as never before, they justifiably trusted the natural inclination of men to pursue their interests would prevent the accumulation of tyrannical power in just a few hands. Enforcement of what was to became the 10th Amendment wouldn’t rely on the goodwill of self-interested, popularly derived politicians, nor scotus. Security of state powers would rely on the states themselves.
The framers’ reliance on federalism, of state participation was reflected in the way the constitution was ratified, in the Article V process, electoral college and especially the senate, whose members were appointed by and responsible to, the state legislatures.
Central to understanding why the 17th Amendment must be repealed is recognition that the extensive powers granted to the new government were designed with the assumption that the states would forever participate in it, that no less than thirteen distinct republican legislatures would continually cast watchful eyes over every proceeding of congress, the president and courts. It is why the states agreed to specifically relinquish additional powers in Article I Section 10, and submit to the constitution and its pursuant laws as supreme law of the land.
It is through this gift to mankind, of a new system of confederal republican government, that relied on both the consent of the people and distinct member republics, that liberty could prosper.
History, both ancient and our own since 1913 illustrate the instability of democratic republics.
Our 102 year experiment in representative democracy is a failure. For practical purposes, Article I Section 1, which established the American Republic has been repealed. Legislative power has swirled into the hands of the executive and courts. As in ancient republics, we are doomed to acceleration of the existing anarchy, then by eventual calls for a strongman to “do something,” followed by bare-knuckled tyrannical force.
To restore the republican freedom most of us know only from history texts, the 17th Amendment must go. Since reform will not emerge from those who profit so well from our corrupt system, there is no alternative to an Article V state amendment convention to make this happen.
It will truly be us (states) against them (feds)
Will the rank and file UIV realize it ?
Well said.
All you have to do is get those wimp @$$ governors to stand up, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I have been advocating this as a CW II prevention move for a long time.
Then again I felt like the TEA Party Caucus should change their party affiliation to deny a majority to the traitorous GOPe....
Bumping your post to the top and repeating a portion of it:
“How has the federal government manged to accumulate this massive and unconstitutional size and power? Up until now, it has been mostly judicial activism on the part of SCOTUS allowing and ratifying unconstitutional federal power not contemplated by our Founders. The top three political causes, IMO, are:
1) “The Incorporation Doctrine” (judicially misapplied to the 14th Amendment)leading to a growth in the feds power not contemplated by the ratifiers of the 14A and leading to a parade of horribles like banning prayer and Bible study in state schools, 70+ million abortions, threatening gun rights, interference with state marriage laws, threatening free exercise of religion, etc.
. 2) The [Interstate] Commerce Clause (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 3)expanded to give the feds almost unlimited power over intrastate and local economic activities leading to minimum wage laws, individual subsidies, and interference in just about every business enterprise and economic endeavor, the latest, most obvious being the push to socialize healthcare with “Obamacare”.
3) The “Necessary and Proper Clause” (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 18) expanded beyond constitutional grounds and limits to such an extent that a quasi-fourth branch of government has been created: the Administrative State with behemoth bureaucracies like the $1 trillion unconstitutional Dept of Health and Human Services.
Although the 17A issue may be an important one (I certainly believe in the republican principle of decentralized representation), I think these other issue are more directly the causes of our #1 problem.”
That kind of amendment doesn't change the Constitution - it essentially destroys it by nullifying its supreme authority.
If you're going to nullify the authority of the U.S. Constitution at will, why do you need an amendment to the Constitution to do it? That's silly. If you're going to ignore the Constitution, why do you need the Constitution's permission via an amendment to do it? Just do it.
But why nullify the supreme authority of the Constitution? What problem does that fix? You need to get back to what is the root political problem. The problem is an out of control government mostly committing unconstitutional acts. How does state nullification of the Constitution fix that? However, state nullification of unconstitutional federal acts attacks the problem directly.
It doesn't really matter to me who the author of this proposed Section 2 of Amendment 28 is. You are advocating and proposing it so I am addressing you on it. What you propose is abandonment of the Rule of Law, the Constitution, which is our only legal protection in this country against the whimsical Rule of Man, which is tyranny. Again, that IS the problem with government today. The answer isn't more of the same at the state level, but putting government, back into its constitutional cage. That has and always will be the key to protecting our freedoms in this country from attack within and without.
The question is, are there enough people in any state who want freedom badly enough to brave whatever needs to be braved to recover it? To be the land of the free, we must be the home of the brave. We can be if we come back to trusting God, not man.
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.