Posted on 06/26/2015 12:53:56 PM PDT by Jacquerie
Deny human nature if you wish.
And THAT is why this country suffered the worst week since Obama was given the thrown by so-called conservative Freepers who refused to vote. Ugh, it disgusts me. Go ahead, do it again. Make my grandson's life (and your family's lives) a living hell.
throne
I’ll agree that men of courage and vision are rare but for a country of 330 million we only have to produce 435 of them. These aren’t clerks in a Grocery store. If we don’t expect more we won’t get more.
A “citizen” legislature was not supposed to mean a career. It was supposed to be one or two terms the out.
Had we elected people who stood on principle, the Supreme Court would surely not have the makeup it has today, rendering the rest of your argument moot.
I am in full agreement that we have a Supreme Court who, as I said earlier today, yesterday thought it could write law and today thinks it can play God.
“How often at your workplace have you held your tongue “
Never. Why? I am known as Brutally Honest.
“You can’t get fired from an elected office. “
Exactly. The fact is WE don’t hold them accountable as much as liberals do. They know Republicans will vote for them no matter what so they only have to pander to the (I) and (D) for their votes.
In short, the Framers left the qualifications of electors to the House entirely up to the states. Its right there in Article I. They did this for two reasons.
First, the several states had widely varying standards for voting and arriving at a standard for all states was fairly impossible.
Second, James Madison reminded the delegates that the senate of the states would quell, stop, stomp on all wild proposals from the expected semi-mob in a House of Representatives.
See? Our pre-1913 constitution did not rely on virtue. Sure, a virtuous people will send better people to the House, but when they don't, the senate of the states is there to stop idiocy.
Since 1913 the idiocy of popular whims has been extended to the senate. Can you tell the difference in rhetoric between the typical rat rep and senator? I can't.
Separation of powers and not reliance on virtue is the historic and essential characteristic of our constitution.
Madison spoke of a government of non-angels in post #47.
The other faction, the Republicans, are united in avoiding accountability and blame, and are afraid of their delegated powers in the Constitution.
-PJ
If I follow correctly, Jacquerie is simply pointing out that everybody compromises. Elected officials absolutely must compromise, build coalitions, etc.
How do we make their self-interest our self-interest? They get money, perks, etc.
We are so far past the Constitution it’s not funny. The people are in thrall via the government school system and the media. They don’t know the truth.
Hoping it wasn’t so, doesn’t change political reality. How do you walk this all back?
But Madison also never expected the people to repeatedly send the unvirtuous back to Congress over and over again, as I point out in post 43.
-PJ
Sorry, but govt doesn’t do ‘the RIGHT thing’. It should NEVER be the arbiter of morality, it fails EVERY time.
What *I* want is a representative who follows the Constitution; the rest *I* can do (for good or ill).
I want Laws that punish that which harm and infringe another and/or their Rights. Else, get off my back, out of my wallet and out of my way.
This is not compromise. This is outright lying to get elected, and then pivoting once safely in office. Use McConnell's Kentucky pledges to repeal Obamacare as evidence; Roberts' calling balls and strikes; Flake campaigning as a Conservative.
This is asking your neighbors to be their representative, and then supporting the interests of illegal aliens and H-1B foreigners over the interests of your neighbors.
-PJ
Keep reading.
-PJ
When the 17th Amendment was passed in 1913, every previously state appointed senator who ran for popular election in 1914 was reelected.
Even into the 1930s, Scotus blocked FDR's New Deal for a while. By the time of his death, FDR had appointed eight of the nine sitting justices and progressivism was well underway.
Now why did 1930s senators consent to FDR's radical judicial nominations? They were scared to oppose an incredibly popular president and lose their next elections.
In the interest of keeping their jobs, the senate of the 1930s allowed a President and Scotus to fundamentally transform America.
It is happening again, with the difference that there is little liberty to relinquish.
If virtue was all that was required, there was no need for a constitution.
If you want to care only about you and your family (which will soon be obsolete), then work in the private sector.
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.