You're not alone in this belief. But I won't stand atop my soap box screaming "THIS IS NOT WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS HAD IN MINDDDDDD!" Because then all credible arguments are lost.
Ontopic I thought that ....
- Thread starter Atan Nolme
- Start date
You're not alone in this belief. But I won't stand atop my soap box screaming "THIS IS NOT WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS HAD IN MINDDDDDD!" Because then all credible arguments are lost.
Syrup Beaver
pants log
Bitter with the process? No, bitter with people who constantly want more of my money for worthless things, and more of my rights so that they have the illusion of safety.
Syrup Beaver
pants log
It's not just "corporate" America that's doing the lobbying, you have your NOW and your NRA and the like.
Syrup Beaver
pants log
Yes, at the State and local levels, it was not meant for the Federal government to be the massive institution it is now.
Syrup Beaver
pants log
Syrup Beaver
pants log
Like I said. Lashing out.
No, not lashing out at all, I disagree with the idea of the "living document" as you describe it, it was not meant to be changed to restrict freedom, I can guarantee you that.
If you truly want to get rid of lobbing by businesses and organizations. Then repeal the Sixteenth Amendment (another progressive burden). Institute a national sales tax with congress needing a super majority to change it.
No the Constitution is set in stone. If the Founding Fathers wanted it to be a "living" document. Then they would have made the amendment process a lot easier.
the constitution didn't come down from the mount on stone tablets handled by moses
No it didn't. However the Founding Fathers were smart and wise enough to know that any form of government can become corrupt. While the Constitution gives us our representative republic. It along with the Bill of Rights sets limits on federal power. Again the progressives weakened those limits by passing the Seventeenth Amendment.
This country has been going in the wrong direction (federal power) ever since Marbury v. Madison. It picked up a whole lot of steam in the last 110 years.
The Amendment was drafted by Populists, a group whose movement expired even before the Depression and doesn't align with modern progressive thought. Populists were people that I think Chikken and other Liberal haters could relate to: poor Southern farmers that distrusted banks, railroads, the North, society's elite, etc. Not very Progressive.
So I ask. What exactly is your problem with the 17th amendment? You'd rather have the Legislature elect the Senate? Or do you just not like the idea of a Senate?
Why do you think Senators are elected every six years, instead of every two years like the House? The Senate was a nod to the British crown's parliamentary style of government. A check on the House.... especially as it pertains to emotional and/or hot button issues.
The people elect members of the House from the districts in which they live. Senators were chosen by the states to represent the entire state that they were from. It also would serve (similar to the Electoral College) the purpose of insuring that a handful of largely populated states did not effectively control the rest of the smaller less populated states. That's why there are only two Senators for every state in the union.
Direct popular vote for Senators effectively neuters the original intent of check and balance intended by the Founders. Additionally, why do you think that all spending has to originate in the House of Representatives?
Presidents often get the blame for spending.... it is the nature and risk that comes with being the Chief Executive, but the President can only propose. It is Congress (specifically the HoR) that disposes.
I think the Founders knew that once people figured out that they could vote themselves bread and circuses, the game would be over.
They put enough checks in to make that mindset hard to reach, but ultimately, it comes down to a moral and civic responsibility on the part of the voters.
We can all sit here and blame politicians until the chickens come home to roost.... but the voting public is the problem. The politicians reflect that image.
Democratizing the Constitution:
The Failure of the Seventeenth Amendment
I actually agree with some of the things you say here.
Senators are elected every six years to stagger elections so that every two years, 1/3 of the seats are cycled. It makes sense. The election of Senators was happening since the beginning. It's not a construction of the 17th Amendment. And why shouldn't people be allowed to vote for Senators? I think that's a fine idea and much prefer than over appointment by Legislature (who by the way are also voted for by people). I can support people voting for people. What I don't like is people voting on issues. Ballot measures -- especially with regards to civil rights -- should be left to people who are capable enough to make the proper decisions. e.g. the Rwandan Genocide was incredibly popular.
In some ways, Pedro Pietri was right to say "the masses are asses." And if you've got a problem with the voting public, may be you should be more concerned with education reform than the 17th Amendment.
Syrup Beaver
pants log
Bingo. People by and large want the illusion of safety and free stuff/or "free stuff" for others because they themselves feel guilty about not helping.