Posted on 04/07/2017 1:57:56 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Our once Free Republic continues to reel from a one hundred and four-year-old mistake: the 17th Amendment. Pardon me if I don’t celebrate tomorrow’s anniversary.
Republican theory demands the consent of the governed. From ancient Greece, republican Rome, Saxon Germany, and the English kingdom from which we declared our Independence, the component members of their societies had a place at the lawmaking table. Greek ecclesia, Roman tribunes and senators, Saxon Micklegemots, English commons, lords and king, encompassed the totality of their societies. By this, the consent of the governed was present in every law.
Unlike simpler Greek or Saxon societies which met in single-house democratic assemblies to craft their laws, the vast American Republic required representation of an additional component member, the states. Like the people, the states preceded the Union. Also like the people, the states relinquished some powers in exchange for legislative representation. Out of necessity, our republic was a compound form; it featured both democratic and federal elements.
It could be no other way, for the states would have never subjected themselves to a government in which they were not represented. Until the 17th Amendment, no republic in history denied the lawmaking consent of a component member. Since 1913, the states have been subjected to arbitrary, despotic rule – tyranny. While the Constitution and subsequent laws and court rulings still act on the states, the states have no say in the government of their creation. Left in the wake of the 17A is federalism without a federal government!
Post-17A, the senate is an institution whose foundation cannot support its purposes. Popularly derived bodies are not known for their caution and circumspection. Instead of reflecting the distinct interests of the various states, senators are no more than at-large politicians with extended terms . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at articlevblog.com ...
See my tag line. Our individual states are not independent and lack true representation because of this onerous amendment.
Article V ping!
Probably should be repealled, first, than balanced budget, than term limits, my opinion.
senators are no more than at-large politicians with extended terms . . .
Let’s put that statement into proper perspective.
Senators by virtue of the 17th are popularly elected “Representatives” who’s term according to the Constitution is two years not six. That fact alone is sufficient for States to nullify the 17th Amendment.
There is also some Woodrow Wilson progressive history behind the year 1913 in which the 17th was ratified and a few other things done to qualify the year as one of the worst in American history.
If your State happens to be one of many supported by tax revenue from other States through the Federal spread the wealth around program, you might consider that status in the context of the welfare system sustainability, and how long other states should be willing to support your welfare status.
The paragraph directly above is brought to you courtesy of the income tax system that allows citizens of States, to bypass State government and send tax money directly to the Federal government neutering state governments local control of their people. The income tax system is just one more unconstitutional result from the year 1913.
Bkmk
If the States are to reassert their soveriegnty, why should the persons they choose to represent them be limited in the number of terms they can do so? That would force states to change their representation against their interest.
An amendment repealing the 17th could not be cheated.
The question is: Can we learn from history?
1913 happened because 1912 happened.
In 1912 the Democrats nominated the KKK states rights candidate. States do not have rights. Only humans have rights. The 1912 KKK Democrats put the state above the individual. And the KKK was and is all about some men being smarter than the rest of us and imposing their agenda by any means necessary.
In 1912 the Republicans split into the Bull Moose Party of Teddy Roosevelt and the Republicans both of whom were clueless about strategy and tactics.
Can we learn from history?
If we repeat 1912 then will we repeat 1913?
Yes, 1913 was a very bad year under a very bad President.
I’m not sure I follow your train of thought, but yes I certainly hope we can learn from history.
bmfl
Pre-17, Senators were conceived as ambassadors of the States to the FedGov. Having the FedGov tell the States how to select their Senators is like the UN telling the various nations how they must select their ambassadors.
Additionally, statewide popular vote for Senators just hands power over to the populous cities. If we must vote directly for Senators it should be by some sort of state level electoral college that preserves the voices of the countryside against the onslaught of the peutocracy(*).
(*)Peutocracy - rule by purile effite urban twits.
Jaun McCain, the best argument for term limits in two centuries.
So states should only have a limited right in choosing their representation? If McLame is serving the interests of HIS State (which is supposed to be his job) why should anyone have the right to deny the state that right?
Of course, if the legislature were choosing, I would assume that, at the latest when a new majority were to assume control, the majority would only support a senator that were in general agreement with their priorities. Of course, with McLame, both parties get someone ammenable.
One major drawback to the ways of old - the McLames of this world would have far fewer constiuents who must be payed from their slush funds in order to get enough support.
the first step in the long journey of changing the govt from Republic to democracy.
One representative for every 30,000 persons!
States elect senators anyway they want!
House of Reps must meet in a coliseum or stadium because there should be over 5000 of them! Problem solved.
We cannot pretend that there is any kind of democracy at work in our government when we have so few representatives. Only a small number of them need to be bribed or threatened to get something done. Term limits will do nothing to address this problem.
No one really seems to offer up the “why” for the 17A. If for some 120 years senators came from appointments by states’ legislatures, then why the popular change to direct leelction by the masses?
There must be a political “raison d’etre” for the radical change.
It may have been the fed gov was seeing lot’s of popular interest in change from republican process towards progressivism and the direct election of senators would be favorable to the tide change of policy regarding the rule of law and progressive policy shift.
Just as FRD stacked the courts because he could, to facilitate a tide change on SCOTUS policy, the switch from legislative appointment to direct election had to have a reason.
Indeed, while the 17A had to be ratified by a certain number of state legislatures, I would think the list of those who so did in early and rapid succession would be telling. Perhaps NY, CA, CN, MA, NJ, VT, ME etc ( my speculation) moved quickly to ratify and eventually enough momentum was gained to assure ratification. Same method being used today regarding “social justice issues” like “same sex this and illegal immigrant that”.
Too bad. The election of state legislators who then appointed US senators indeed was a check and balance of popular wind driven shift of power in the US gov. To our chagrin.
No one really seems to offer up the “why” for the 17A. If for some 120 years senators came from appointments by states’ legislatures, then why the popular change to direct leelction by the masses?
There must be a political “raison d’etre” for the radical change.
It may have been the fed gov was seeing lot’s of popular interest in change from republican process towards progressivism and the direct election of senators would be favorable to the tide change of policy regarding the rule of law and progressive policy shift.
Just as FRD stacked the courts because he could, to facilitate a tide change on SCOTUS policy, the switch from legislative appointment to direct election had to have a reason.
Indeed, while the 17A had to be ratified by a certain number of state legislatures, I would think the list of those who so did in early and rapid succession would be telling. Perhaps NY, CA, CN, MA, NJ, VT, ME etc ( my speculation) moved quickly to ratify and eventually enough momentum was gained to assure ratification. Same method being used today regarding “social justice issues” like “same sex this and illegal immigrant that”.
Too bad. The election of state legislators who then appointed US senators indeed was a check and balance of popular wind driven shift of power in the US gov. To our chagrin.
Thanks for the ping.
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.