Posted on 07/10/2015 10:18:20 AM PDT by Kaslin
When Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence Hall at the close of the Constitutional Convention, a lady asked him what kind of government had been formed. Franklin reportedly responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."
Franklin's answer has always been interesting because it revealed that he well understood the profound difference between a pure democracy and a constitutional republic. But far more intriguing to me was Franklin's implied concern that the newly crafted scheme of government was hardly self-sustaining and ultimately vulnerable.
He and the other framers understood that liberty was rare in world history and that it would be no easy task to design a system that would both maximize and preserve it. I believe that until relatively recently most Americans cherished this system precisely because it was uniquely equipped to accomplish those purposes. Now I am not so sure.
The framers established a federal government with sufficient power to ensure ordered liberty, but with a host of limitations on its power. Governmental power was divided between the federal government and the states, and federal power was divided among three branches that would each check encroachments by the others. They set up a bicameral legislature to further diffuse federal power and eventually drafted a Bill of Rights to expressly guarantee civil liberties against government intrusion -- and much more.
This system was vastly superior to the celebrated "democratic" systems of ancient Greece and the Roman Republic. It wasn't the first system to include popular participation in the decisions of government. It was unique because it was the first to impose significant limitations on government.
It is those limitations that ensure our liberties. It is those limitations that make America the greatest nation in world history and the envy of all mankind. It is the deliberate erosion and destruction of those limitations that existentially threatens this nation today.
Don't you see? Franklin knew as well as anyone the powerful safeguards he and the other framers had imposed to maximize and preserve liberty, and yet he knew that human nature was such that this system would still be vulnerable to abuse and attack. "A republic, if you can keep it."
No matter how ingeniously designed, the Constitution and laws are not immune from fascists who, under color of law, ignore their plain meaning. Checks and balances ultimately break down if those wielding power twist, pervert, ignore, selectively enforce and flout the law.
This is why character matters so much; this is why morality is foundational to government. Any system of self-governance, even one as glorious as ours, ultimately depends on the honor of the people living under it.
Anti-constitutionalists have been chipping away at the integrity of the Constitution for decades, for they prefer the forcible imposition of their own values and agenda more than they cherish liberty. But the process of dismantling our system has now accelerated to alarming levels -- it has reached a fever pitch -- as the puffed-up left is feeling its oats, intoxicated by a bitter president anxious to exact revenge on a nation he obviously believes was born in hell.
Why would President Obama have any hesitation in emasculating the Constitution and the rule of law when he resents its very formation and what it represents? Why would he protect our borders against illegal immigration when he doesn't believe in the system the legal immigration process is designed to promote -- especially when changing the demographics is virtually guaranteed to increase the power of radical leftists?
I don't expect to get through to people who, like Obama, believe America, as founded, is intrinsically unfair, but I challenge fellow freedom lovers to consider that Obama and his band of leftists don't really care so much about things like expanding people's access to quality health care; they don't care about putting people back to work; they don't even care about harmony among the races.
What they care about is consolidating their power and imposing their will, and they use these various hot-button causes to do so. They want to have their way, and they are using government in unprecedented ways to achieve it -- absolutely unconcerned about the destroyed liberties in their wake. They are showing their true colors as they freely trample on the Constitution and rule of law. They are not only encroaching on the liberties of their opponents; they are openly trying to muzzle them.
More and more people are starting to wake up to the extremism of the political left, which, incidentally, has taken firm control of today's Democratic Party to the point that pundits across the board are acknowledging that unapologetic socialist Bernie Sanders risks nothing in proudly advertising his socialist agenda to his base. In fact, his openness has forced Hillary Clinton to scramble even further leftward to compete.
I pray that freedom lovers and patriots will muster the same passion in defending this nation as those attacking it. The first step is to recognize what's going on. Is it possible that even some rank-and-file Democrats can set aside their allegiance to party affiliation long enough to open their eyes to it?
That's a long shot. But could at least those who call themselves Republicans wipe the sleep out of their eyes and rise up in defense of liberty and this our rapidly disintegrating America?
If you think reducing the electorate for the US Senate back to a small handful of POLITICIANS will IMPROVE things, you’re daft. If would be exactly the opposite of what you want.
Yes. I think the local yokels would protect their rights and mine better than the federal criminals. If you think the election of senators by the mob has worked well, you may have been asleep for almost 7 years. Perhaps you think the IRS does not have enough power.
Here's Cynthia.
And here's Willie.
They're Obama/LaRaza democrats and career politicians. They can have MY VOTE, take away MY RIGHT to choose a Senator over MY DEAD BODY. Anyone who thinks they are better able to choose my Senator than me can go bleep themselves.
Yet this week was very, very interesting, with a Mr. Trump brining in a dynamic. B. Franklin would have been pleased.
Died at Appomattox CH.
Died at Appomattox CH.
Senate elections by corrupt legislators was an unheralded failure before the 19th century was out, and were regarded by the public as a thoroughgoing joke, which led to the demand for direct accountability to the voters. That they would magically work today and bring about better Senators given how even more corrupt and debased legislatures have become (and the quest for pork despite being $20 trillion in debt with perhaps $100+ trillion in unfunded liabilities) is utter lunacy. This subject has been thoroughly discussed to death on FR on countless threads.
The 17th amendment sux.
Discussed fine. Decided no.
I’ll tell you what would ‘suck’ cowboy, lets take a conservative state like Texas. Ted Cruz’s opponent in the primary was RINO Lt. Governor Dewhurst, LT GOVERNOR IS BOSS of the State Senate. Guess who got the endorsement of I believe all but 1 of the GOP State Senators? Here’s a hint, it wasn’t Cruz.
The House Speaker who’s still there is bigger RINO than Dewhurst, wonder who would have supported if it was up to him instead of all Texas voters.....hmmmmmm tough one. NOT. Looks like THE PEOPLE made a better choice than A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS would have made.
And if conservatives objected, RINOS would get dems to vote with them to elect RINO Senators. This would probably happen in EVERY state with a Republican legislature. Every state with a dem legislature would of course elect a dem Senator, accountable only to them, who only has to worry about keeping a couple party leaders happy to keep his seat in the next election.
I want you to look at post 43 in this thread and tell me why you think those communist sh*theads Cynthia and Willie are entitled to MY vote for US Senator. Cause let me tell you something pal, I’m not gonna let them have it, certainly not cause some dude on the Internet or some radio talk show host who thinks he’s an expert on the Constitution says I should cause that’s what they think James Madison would want if he were still alive. Anyone who wants to give MY vote for one of this nation’s most powerful offices away to liberal career politicians can pound sand.
Well stated.
People are grasping for ways to change things, somehow. The politicos will never get this power to choose Senators back from the people. People who think that state legislators should pick Senators just haven't met enough state legislators yet.
I guess a lot of folks missed the brining.
Brining is a process similar to marination in which meat or poultry is soaked in brine before cooking.
Please get help, maybe a school for "special" people.
We would probably have fewer Senators like Ted Cruz. We would also have fewer like Tom Harkin and Bernie Sanders.
Senators would be much more attentive to their states if the legislature selected the Senators. Instead they try to play on a national stage and under influences of countless national movements.
You’d have precisely none like Cruz. From Democrat states, you would indeed have more Tom Harkin types and in Vermont, you’d have two Patrick Leahy types (mind you, Leahy is to the LEFT of Bernie Sanders, so you’d have two anti-gun Stalinists instead of one). From Republican states, you’d have big gubmint RINO squishes galore. Texas would send Dewhurst and Karl Rove (yes, you read that right, Karl Rove) to the Senate.
If by chance a Conservative got nominated out of the caucus, RINOs would join with Democrats to elect one of the latter in the full assembly (or the Dems would send up a RINO puppet). Think that doesn’t happen ?
Our current method may not be ideal, but it could end up far worse, and often does.
You need to go back and research what was happening in the 19th century to see that Senators were serving themselves and not empowering their states. Add to that that politics has already been nationalized right down to the lowest level offices today, and you can’t detach it anymore. Local politics is national and national politics is local.
All of this has been discussed endlessly and debunked as to whatever “positives” anti-17thers claim would happen.
It is possible that, as you say, Senators would be more responsive to politicians in the state legislatures and less responsive to the people of their states. But, a lot of us prefer that they be more responsive to us and less responsive to other politicians. But, in the end, you either like the idea that the people are sovereign or you don't.
Thanks. I often feel like I’m talking to the wall on this issue, wasting my words. It’s very surprising to me how popular it is here. I think because Mark Levin is behind it and his show is very popular.
If you start thinking about it logically, using the logic of the real world, it just doesn’t make any darn sense at all.
Um.......No.
bump
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.