Posted on 04/17/2021 1:38:28 PM PDT by Jacquerie
From Charles de Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws, “When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils, but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles.”
There is a fundamental contradiction in the structure of our government that is responsible for the increasing turmoil we’ve witnessed these past few decades. Media pleas to “get along” and compromise reflect snowballing social and political tensions.
Unimaginable only a decade ago, our rulers in Washington, DC prepare for societal collapse. Rather than deal with the sickness that afflicts our republic, they respond to the symptoms, through billion round ammo purchases and administrative agency task forces to investigate, stymie, and prosecute political opponents.
Like a steam boiler with a disabled governor, the building pressure in a deeply divided American society threatens to blow up in racial, economic or police state violence. We see the collapse of society and free government all around and wonder what exactly happened, and what we can do about it.
The source of our long term ailment is simple to diagnose. In a free government, the component members of the republic are represented in the lawmaking body. The Framing generation knew this as Consent of the Governed. We must restore this maxim before it is too late.
In the American system, any proposed law that could garner the support of the House of Representatives and a Senate of the States was probably acceptable to the people and the states at large. This embrace of both the people and the states into our government served to reduce the possibility of infighting and social disorders among a fairly homogenous people.
The concept of free government wasn’t new in 1787. It is as old as the ancient Greek city-states in which the people participated directly in a government that acted on them. Likewise in the Roman republic, where patricians and plebs alike participated. Under the British system, the whole of society, the commons, lords and king had their place in crafting legislation. Our very own Articles of Confederation constituted free government because the institution which the government acted upon, the states, had representation in the government. Notice the people were not represented under the Articles of Confederation. It wasn’t necessary because the government did not act on the people.
Thus, in broad terms, these free government designs were stable systems, for no group was empowered to dominate and oppress another by virtue of the absence of that group from the government. Consent of the Governed.
That changed horribly in 1913. For the first time in history, an institution that had a legitimate and necessary place in free government, the states, walked away and subjected themselves to the caprice of the people. With passage of the 17th Amendment, the United States was transformed overnight from a federal republic into a large, unwieldy democratic republic that held arbitrary power over the states. While the Constitution still acted on the states through numerous clauses, the states were not represented. Despite popular representation in the House and Senate, free government for the states and the people they protected was gone. Not Consent of the Governed.
Booting the states from our system of government makes as much sense as booting the people. It makes no sense at all.
In order to remain a free government with passage of the 17th, every clause in the Constitution that affected the states should have been repealed. That’s right, every one. The states were no longer represented, and therefore the government had no legitimate power over them. Passage of the 17th left behind a federal constitution without federalism.
The cynic would immediately point out that removing these clauses is impossible. The people, states, and the government they created are intertwined in their duties, functions and responsibilities. That is correct. Remove all of the clauses that affect the states and the remaining contradictions would likely lead to violence and dissolution. IOW, what we face today.
The 17th Amendment was a blind alley to arbitrary, despotic government. Republican freedom cannot be restored until it is repealed. Consent of the Governed.
Article V to restore our federal republic.
But what do to do about it? I recently changed my mind about making political arguments based on the US Constitution, opting for a nationalist/populist approach that has been fundamental to MAGA success. Making constitutional arguments, I have discovered, falls on deaf ears. It is fine to be firmly rooted in the US Constitution, and to have disagreements with certain amendments, including the 17th. But how do you get through to the masses that have zero background in civics to motivate them about a change to the US Constitution?
By sidestepping that issue. Embedded in the problem to Constitutional restoration is a diseased education system that makes that part of the electorate dysfunctional. Thus, not enough of the electorate can be awakened with persuasion.
Another approach is to catch the bad actors in the government in the act of treason, arrest them all, try them and remove them from power. The whole cabal, at once. Kind of like a mother-of-all Sting Operations.
To do this, groom a citizen to become POTUS, who would work with the military, over say the course of four years. Become ever popular with American Citizens, while driving mad the media, the bad actors, and so on to the point where they'd steal any bid for re-election. But, the Sting was on, and catches them.
I know, sounds far fetched, pie-in-the-sky kind of thing.
One can dream...
I think this will be very clear in a year or so when Republicans lose even more seats in both the house and senate. The Commies will move forward with packing the supreme court then any Commie law they pass will stand up in the highest court.
I hope I'm wrong but I'm not aware of any history that supports the notion we can save this republic as it is today.
<>But how do you get through to the masses that have zero background in civics to motivate them about a change to the US Constitution?<>
I don’t believe the great body of the people of the US are as corrupted and ignorant as Article V opponents (not you) assume. IIRC, James Madison wrote to the effect that the typical ploughman recognizes bad government, and as polls have shown, most believe the 2020 election was stolen. Hostility, I suspect, grows against the Obiden admin every day.
To your point, once a few states sue congress to call an Article V convention (the states have submitted hundreds of applications) it will be something of Black Swan event for The Swamp. When they react, in the negative, it will generate a tsunami of debate over first American principles of government. People who have never read the Constitution just might educate themselves.
Now, if only President Trump would lead the Article V COS movement . . .
I’m not aware of anything nationalist that is superior to the Constitution.
Especially when you factor in left wing nationalists. The constitution is just simply superior and that’s that.
I've always been a big proponent for a COS, listening to Levin, then reading his book on it, volunteering in my [lost] state of MA, fighting with birchers on social media. However, since The Steal, a much-needed COS will have to wait for restoration of legal civilian government. It's just too corrupt to imagine that states and the courts could be used by Patriots that mainly only populate the lower levers of power.
As for " Black Swan event for The Swamp. When they react, in the negative, it will generate a tsunami of debate over first American principles of government.", the media is needed for that. Nuf said.
I return to #3. The American People that are slumbering... ZZZZ....... need to be awakened, like it was 1776 all over again. Not sure what to call it... perhaps a Great Awakening. Dunno...
If this can be accomplished, removal of the 17th is a piece of cake. Not only that, but while at it, remove the 16th as well, and restore the Federal/State balance.
Perhaps not. You might wish to check out Machiavelli's "Discourses on Livy," in which he examines the fate of republics. He's one of my favorite authors.
From To Retrieve Free Government:
Machiavelli found that even when a few wise laws are passed, corrupt institutions in society and government will turn the law away from their intended, good purposes.
To possibly recover, one of two things must happen. Either prudent men along the way step in to introduce reforms as incremental corruption is detected, or a large single stroke of reform is necessary when the debasement of society and government is evident to all. Since the republic in his discussion is already thoroughly corrupt, it would appear that the first of his possible solutions has been overcome by events.
There may be valid arguments against the direct election of US Senators, but blaming that for the loss of State power versus the national government isn’t one of them. That happened 50 years earlier.
Union victory in the Civil War ended the doctrine of state’s rights via force majeure, no messy Constitutional amendment needed. The Anti-Federalists’ suspicions were proven to be correct, the national government consolidated power to itself.
So you think the 17th Amendment is all well and fine?
Right now, the US military, controlled by Milley et al is part of the globalist estabishment
What is the purpose of having two sets of reps, one popular per congressional district, and two roving, unattached, and likewise popularly elected senators per state?
Self-interest led the house to support the 17th Amendment (17A). Popularly elected senators represented the same constituency (albeit more numerous) as popularly elected representatives. Through their senators, pre-17A states often did their duty and blocked populist proposals from the house. Without the influence of state legislatures, the house stood to gain power in congress.4
Few voices advised caution, that despite the progressives’ propaganda regarding corruption, the senate still served its Constitutional and proper purpose, to temper and cool wild proposals from the house, protect the states from federal encroachment, and provide wise counsel and circumspection of the president’s nominees and proposed treaties.
I’ve come to the opinion that the failings of the last few Republican adminstrations is they think they can fix things. They then spend four years fighting the system and gain nothing.
It can’t be fixed. It needs to be blown up. My vote goes to the candidate who says day one he will transfer all federal departments other than the State Department and DoD to the States.
BUMP! Parallel tracks
Okay, just getting an idea where you are coming from. I am strongly rooted in the constitution prior to progessives (Wilson) changing it. In my original post I was trying to understand how changes could be made to undo that given MAGA and the trend towards national/populism.
“In opposition to the Framers, late 19th century progressives promoted a new purpose and a new foundation for the senate”
The first proposals for direct election of Senators began as early as 1826, so while fixating on the Progressives is always popular sport it ignores history. And prior to 1866 there wasn’t any consistency in how various States went about selecting Senators anyway. And when it finally was changed in 1913 it was done by Amendment, which last time anyone checked is the method that the Constitution itself requires.
The whole attempt to make a sacred cow out of State legislatures selecting Senators is ridiculous. Under the Articles of Confederation that preceded the Constitution all representation was selected by State legislatures. Switching to direct elections for the House under the Constitution wasn’t one of the hot debates featuring a warning that the Senate had to retain the old method. There was no magic under the state legislature method. Sometimes legislatures were so contentious no Senators were even chosen.
“I am strongly rooted in the constitution prior to progessives (Wilson) changing it.”
Woodrow Wilson took the oath of office on March 4, 1913. The 17th Amendment was ratified on April 8, 1913.
Wilson must have had some pretty strong magic to have changed the Constitution in one month and four days.
If I recall correctly an Amendment becomes effective on the date that 3/4 of the States ratify it. Meaning that Wilson had nothing at all to with the 17th Amendment becoming law, nor the 16th for that matter.
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.