Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The original presumption was based on wealth, but no one ever wants to say that. The Senate represented the wealthy, the House represented everyone else. But it wasn’t just snobbery - it was with a keen eye to financial realities. Truly wealthy men of the day were owners of financial resources on a scale that was affected, influenced and threatened by the stability or instability of the State itself. They were used to looking at situations from that perspective, and, it was assumed by the Founders, would be far more likely to seek to preserve its lawful stability and safety. In contrast, it was felt that non-wealthy people might be more inclined to undermine the State out of popular rage over some issue, or worse yet, br organized by an Executive Branch despot towards the same ends.

I’m not sure the model stand today, though. Truly wealthy people have gone global and give not a damn about the States. They’re more concerned with getting rid of the entire country, through treaties that they lobby for wrongful enforcement above the powrrs of the Constitution itself.


9 posted on 12/04/2014 6:50:43 PM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Talisker

Similar to the British Lords/Commons?


19 posted on 12/04/2014 7:17:50 PM PST by ex91B10 (We've tried the Soap Box,the Ballot Box and the Jury Box; ONE BOX LEFT!a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Talisker
Another awful aspect of the 17th is that it denied the consent of the governed.

The government of our republic differed from all those previous, in that it acts not just directly on the people, but also on member republics, the states.

Until 1913, both the people and states were represented in the law making body, congress. That made perfect sense and was/is absolutely necessary to republican government.

Post 1913, the states are not represented in a government that acts on them! In order to remain internally consistent with republican theory, every clause which dealt with the states should have been repealed along with the 17th. That of course is impossible, for our system has the people/states/national entities intertwined in their duties.

The 17th left behind a federal constitution without a federal government!

Also, check out the last clause of Article V. “ . . . and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” From Wiki, FL, GA, KY, MS, SC, and VA have not ratified the 17th. The 17th was another insult from the victors of the Civil War. The legislatures of these states should still appoint their senators.

33 posted on 12/05/2014 1:37:17 AM PST by Jacquerie (Article V. If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson