A question for you if you have insight on the topic. The 17th Amendment gave us popular vote for the US Senate. Like the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, via the 14th Amendment, binding states, it appears to me that the 17th reflects an erosion of federalism. Is there any evidence of any countervailing force? Do you see any evidence of a counter to this trend? — JosephS
As Marchesk points out, it is irrational to ask for democratic institutions just because every politician in the U.S. uses appeals to democratic institutions. — hairy belly
You have to read between the lines. — Noah Te Stroete
I’m dead serious. I also have my grandfather’s burial flag, a picture of my grandpa when he was a sailor, and a picture of my nephew in his Marines uniform on my mantle. — Noah Te Stroete
Always upholding precedent - because it happened - will lead to repeating mistakes. — creativesoul
the argument of those opposed to the EC that it was the tool of slave holders. — JosephS
And they forged the constitution. The metaphor of the forge is apt, imo, the red hot iron of ideas hammered on the anvil of debate - sometimes itself heated- by skilled hands. No word of it is unweighed, unconsidered, accidental. It starts, as you well know, "We the people...".
The government, then, is of, by, and for, the people. The point being that the government is intended to not be apart from the people - even though most of those people are "always already" judged unfit to be the governers. And this is just Socratic wisdom: do you trust everyone to train your horse, or more properly the man who is the horse-trainer?
And so federalism, representative to address the problems both of democracy and the sheer size of the country. Equal division of power for checks and balances. State governments for local concerns - and because states are the original entities. So far, junior high school civics, or should be. I myself believe that every US voter should pass a basic civics test before he or she can vote.
Was the 17th amendment a movement away from federalism? How could it be? It simply altered the how of the selection of senators, not the fact of the selection. And while it may not have eliminated so-called smoke-filled back rooms, it made them much larger. Repeal of the 17th, it seems to me, is akin to what happens to alcohol when too refined. You go from beer and wine to whisky, rum, and brandy, finally to grain alcohol, which is undrinkable.
I see your citation on repeal. I see it starts with this:
"Out of manufactured hysteria over nonexistent corruption, the Seventeenth Amendment was born, robbing states of their most notable constitutional check on federal lawmaking." If you buy this, you're a fool. Are you a fool? This seems typical of the big lies so much now a part of our daily discourse.
It ends with this:
"So let’s give states back their original power to stop federal overreach by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment. Let’s remedy our century-old mistake. It just might save the republic." Who knows, maybe we can have slaves again. Not black ones; that would be impolitic. And the other minorities wouldn't put up with it. So maybe thee? Or me?
I see it was written by a third-year law student. It has the ignorant enthusiasm of a student, with the substance of a moot court argument. God help him - and us - if he means even a single word of it. There is danger in educated ignorance elevated to stupidity in service of ideas that are ultimately vicious. We have our own examples, but the usual models are fascism and communism, which seem to evolved into today's cult-leaders, like Putin, Xi Jinping, and others across the world, including our own unspeakable and disgusting wanna-be. *sigh* — tim wood
What part? Or all it? I have to infer you agree with every word, but don't like it. That because of how you express yourself.This is religious bullshit. — Noah Te Stroete
There seems to be a trend away from federalism in this country. The Incorporation of the Bill of Rights is perhaps the more obvious of my two examples. The 17th Amendment, to my mind, also erodes the premise of the state as a sovereign territory. Prior to learning of the history of the 17th Amendment and how Senators used to be elected, it did seem to curious to me that we had two houses, whose members were both elected directly by the People. — JosephS
That’s akin to holocaust denial, like denying that the founding fathers were slave holders. You don’t have to buy it. It’s a fact. — Noah Te Stroete
being the neurotic, pre-pubescent axis upon which political action apparently ought to be judged. — StreetlightX
I disagree with the deifying of men who owned slaves and oppressed women. — Noah Te Stroete
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.