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

To: Jacquerie
Our post-17th Amendment history proves that the horizontal separation of powers between the congress, prez, and courts is insufficient.

Well, to be fair, there was a vertical separation of powers too. (It's just that by making the Senate a sort of super house-of-representatives we stripped States-as-institutions from the federal government.)

(That and the frighteningly pervasive view that the federal government is, in all cases, superior to the States.)

20 posted on 04/11/2015 11:16:09 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: OneWingedShark
The only reason the Framers didn't specify annual elections for reps was the difficulty of 18th century travel.

They considered and immediately rejected a popularly derived senate, and would barf at the thought of six year terms for elected reps.

Also, check out Article I Section 10. These are the powers relinquished by thirteen nations to an umbrella republic of their creation. They didn't give up a single power until their presence in the senate was assured. The constitution was entirely contingent on a senate of the states.

The constitution acts on both the people and the states, so both were represented in the law making body. It makes as much sense in our system to boot the people from congress as it did to boot the states . . . no sense at all.

The 17A left behind a federal constitution without a federal government.

21 posted on 04/11/2015 12:07:00 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Article V. If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | 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