19 Jun 14
Originally posted by normbenignWhat was the complaint against: "... and the other elected by representatives of the States. "
Could not have said it better. Thus the founders defined a government with three co-equal branches, a bicameral legislature, with one house directly elected (by the people), and the other elected by representatives of the States. This diffusion of power was to avoid the dangers of faction, and the dangers of democracy, while still granting the people representation they lacked under King George.
Kelly
19 Jun 14
Originally posted by no1marauderOne must remember that when the Framers spoke of "democracy" they saw that as different from a democratic "republic".
One must remember that when the Framers spoke of "democracy" they saw that as different from a democratic "republic". Madison in Federalist 14:
The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding o ...[text shortened]... citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
Federalist 10
From your quote, it seems that by "republic" they just meant a modern democracy. Of course, no modern nation state is "democratic" in the "local" sense Madison discusses.
19 Jun 14
Originally posted by KellyJayPossibility of corruption among the small group of electors and deadlocks in the State legislatures that caused some States to go years without having full representation in the Senate. As it happened, The States themselves were the ones who insisted on the change:
What was the complaint against: "... and the other elected by representatives of the States. "
Kelly
Twenty-seven states had called for a constitutional convention on the subject, with 31 states needed to reach the threshold;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
One of the reasons that Congress voted for the 17th Amendment was to prevent a full Constitutional Convention which it was feared might get out of hand (considering the overwhelming Populist sentiment at the time, right wingers should be on their knees thanking that Congress for derailing a full second Constitutional Convention). After Congressional approval on May 12, 1912 it took less than 10 months for the required 36 States to ratify the Seventeenth Amendment, remarkably rapid by any standard.
19 Jun 14
Originally posted by KellyJayThe change to popular election of Senators in Statewide elections (17th amendment) made and end to one portion of federalism, that of the States being a party to the government.
What was the complaint against: "... and the other elected by representatives of the States. "
Kelly
It was quickly approved in a time where Progressivism was viewed with less suspicion than now.
Interestingly, a Convention of the States has been often feared as a tool of the left, but is now heartily recommended by Mark Levin, a right winger by no1 standards.
19 Jun 14
Originally posted by no1marauderThe 17th was quickly passed but the 16th never was. Why?
Possibility of corruption among the small group of electors and deadlocks in the State legislatures that caused some States to go years without having full representation in the Senate. As it happened, The States themselves were the ones who insisted on the change:
Twenty-seven states had called for a constitutional convention on the subject, with 31 ...[text shortened]... or the required 36 States to ratify the Seventeenth Amendment, remarkably rapid by any standard.
20 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat other amendment was ratified in the slipshod manner of the 16th? Why is everything you disagree with attributed to "right wingers"?
Don't start that BS again. The Constitution wasn't ratified by the absurd standards that right wingers seem to want to apply to the ratification process of the 16th Amendment.
20 Jun 14
Originally posted by no1marauderThank you
Possibility of corruption among the small group of electors and deadlocks in the State legislatures that caused some States to go years without having full representation in the Senate. As it happened, The States themselves were the ones who insisted on the change:
Twenty-seven states had called for a constitutional convention on the subject, with 31 ...[text shortened]... or the required 36 States to ratify the Seventeenth Amendment, remarkably rapid by any standard.
20 Jun 14
Originally posted by Metal BrainEnding the Fed would take political power away from private businesses. The people in power will never take a step backwards like that.
As long as the Federal Reserve System exists without reform a minimum wage will always be necessary. End the fed!
20 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignThis first sentence assertion is a common one, but it still makes no sense. How "the States" stop being "a party to the government" because the People in the States get to directly elect the Senators is incomprehensible to me. What norm, being an elitist, really objects to is that the "inferior" masses are given more political power and the elites of the individual States a little bit less power. But "the States" are comprised of the People who live in them and no power has been taken from "the States" - the People have simply been given direct power over the selection of their Senators. This is objectionable only to elitists.
The change to popular election of Senators in Statewide elections (17th amendment) made and end to one portion of federalism, that of the States being a party to the government.
It was quickly approved in a time where Progressivism was viewed with less suspicion than now.
Interestingly, a Convention of the States has been often feared as a tool of the left, but is now heartily recommended by Mark Levin, a right winger by no1 standards.
20 Jun 14
Originally posted by no1marauderFirst let's deal with the issue of my being an elitist. That is beyond absurd by every standard of elitism no1 exceeds my elitism.
This first sentence assertion is a common one, but it still makes no sense. How "the States" stop being "a party to the government" because the People in the States get to directly elect the Senators is incomprehensible to me. What norm, being an elitist, really objects to is that the "inferior" masses are given more political power and the elites of the ...[text shortened]... given direct power over the selection of their Senators. This is objectionable only to elitists.
If the people and the States are the same the 10th amendment would not list them as distinct parties.
The difference in the manner of selection of the two branches of the legislature were meaningful to the founders, who distrusted direct democracy and attempted to place obstacles in the way of its practice.
20 Jun 14
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe fed, and its cooperation with Treasury makes inflation almost guaranteed, and manipulation of people by the central bank and government also guaranteed. Increases in the minimum wage may mean almost nothing in the long run if the currency is continually debased.
As long as the Federal Reserve System exists without reform a minimum wage will always be necessary. End the fed!
20 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignGee, I never endorsed a statement calling the "masses" "inferior" as you did today in another thread. Your whole political philosophy is based on keeping the People from exercising power in ways that might discomfort their "betters".
First let's deal with the issue of my being an elitist. That is beyond absurd by every standard of elitism no1 exceeds my elitism.
If the people and the States are the same the 10th amendment would not list them as distinct parties.
The difference in the manner of selection of the two branches of the legislature were meaningful to the founders, who distrusted direct democracy and attempted to place obstacles in the way of its practice.
The Framers set up an amendment process and the People decided that it was preferable that the People in the States directly elect their own Senators. The States then quickly and overwhelming ratified that choice. And over 100 years later elitists like yourself are still complaining about it because the power of elites were thereby reduced and the power of the People somewhat enhanced. This has nothing to do with "federalism"; the 17th Amendment mandated no change in the powers of the States vis a vis the Federal government. It only did what you hate; increased the power of the People at the expense of the elite.