In a word it captures much of the wisdom of the American forefathers. They were quick to dismiss mob wisdom and notions of pure democracy, — tim wood

That was then (1787). This is 2019. If you had read my comments in this thread, then you’d know where I stand.

I’m not saying our forefathers got everything wrong. What they got wrong was leaving so much power to the individual states, the electoral college, and the structure of the Senate, which overwhelmingly favors the powered elites over the vast majority of citizens.

Furthermore, winner take all elections resulted in a forever two party system, which leaves out the viewpoints of a lot of people. This was another mistake.

In conclusion, the forefathers were wise in that their was nothing like our government in the world at the time, but they shouldn’t be deified as they made many mistakes.

What they got wrong was leaving so much power to the individual states, the electoral college, and the structure of the Senate, which overwhelmingly favors the powered elites over the vast majority of citizens. — Noah Te Stroete

How does direct election of senators (17th Amend. 1913) by people favour "elites"? Or at least more than selection by state legislators?

Furthermore, winner take all elections resulted in a forever two party system, which leaves out the viewpoints of a lot of people. This was another mistake. — Noah Te Stroete

Winner take some, loser(s) the rest?

And the electoral college was designed to protect the people. You do get that, right?

And would you like a French system of government? How many governments have the French had, btw? There's is a multi-party system, yes?

I agree in principle that the constitution is not perfect. Not anyone, especially its writers, thought that it was. But it's generally acknowledged by the world across now about 230 years, to be pretty good. I think in your view you criticize it for something it isn't, namely perfect, and its writers for something they never claimed to be, nor anyone else claimed for them, also namely perfect - and both by your standards!

But this is just personal indulgence on your part. What one thing (first) might you change, and how, to make it better?

What one thing (first) might you change, and how, to make it better? — tim wood

I would have one house of Congress with representatives based on equal districts of population with four year terms. Then actual people would be represented and not land. The states already have their own governments, so they don’t need to be equally represented in Congress which is currently the case with the Senate. That’s the first thing I would change.

But this is just personal indulgence on your part. — tim wood

Of course it is. This is a philosophy discussion. We’re discussing theory.

The prostitution of the commerce clause ended any pretense of federalism. It’s DC’s ( congress’s) plenary instrument for making all things it’s own business.

Oh, wait....there’s those right-wing hobgoblins who sit on the bench and dare to curtail, like platonic guardians, the abuses of the commerce clause (e.g. US v. Lopez). Not to mention their haste to jurisprudentially trumpet the Tenth Amendment. “Damn states-righters” is what they must be, KKK types hiding in plain view wearing those black-as-white robes.

Or maybe they just don’t trust the federal government.

Incidentally, the incorporation of the BOR ( most of it) via the 14A was less a manifestation of federalism being eroded than it was a legal angle by defendants to challenge state prosecutions and abuses of civil rights. John Bingham, author of the 14a, envisioned his section 1 clause as a way to accomplish precisely that-granting civil rights protections to all men ( especially blacks, then still de facto slaves, despite the 13A.) — Reshuffle

My posts on this thread are meant to understand perspectives on the evolution of our state. I respect the principles of federalism in as much as a tendency towards a monolithic state with increasing power vested at the center lacks a certain 'ethical efficiency', measured as how the set of obligations and prohibitions map to the customs and standards of the region and group of people under its jurisdiction.

Federalism, from this perspective and as an ideal, respects standards and customs distinct to regions and groups of people (states) and is reflected by variance within constitution and law. As an additional benefit, the avoidance of a monolithic governance structure insulates against political 'disease' analogously to genetic variation protecting against blight in trees.

I don't intend to demean your passion on the topic. For me, however, I limit my topics of inquiry on this forum to those that I can consider dispassionately. I prefer not to raise my objections over things like Kelo v. New London as that is recent and, for me, is as much visceral as cerebral. I'm trying to consider the philosophy of the matter more than the politics of it. Treating the changes we experience as the moving of tectonic plates.

Perhaps this is the natural evolution of governance, a hierarchy tending to the concentration of power at its center, rather than its distribution to the nodes. — JosephS

If we look at the trend of our governance over centuries, where is it leading?

Within our federal government, it appears the judiciary absorbs power as the legislative diminishes. The judiciary, however, sees Originalism gaining ascendancy. In as much as originalism, as opposed to a living constitution, ostensibly binds the court more narrowly to the text, it can be perceived as a smaller and shallower ripple countervailing the ascendant power of the courts.

Do we see any larger waves on the horizon or is the cementing of federal power better perceived as a one-way crystallization of hierarchy -- a sedimentary, unyielding compression?

Thank you for your references to John Bingham. I will look up his name.

Federalism, from this perspective and as an ideal, respects standards and customs distinct to regions and groups of people (states) and is reflected by variance within constitution and law. As an additional benefit, the avoidance of a monolithic governance structure insulates against political 'disease' analogously to genetic variation protecting against blight in trees. — JosephS

What you mention of federalism is more its residue than its design. Federalism, like separation of powers and checks and balances, is about securing the people’s sovereignty and reaffirming the consent of the governed.

The framers began-and ended-their journey of establishing our republic with the threshold concept of “We the people...” Those words and those which followed in the COTUS both underscored an effort to 1) shape our individual states into a collective body ( E pluribus unum) and 2) create a limited government.

Recall, the mission of the revolutionary moments cca. 1776-1778 was to extricate a horde of radicals from tyranny and oppression in the form of a King. Once accomplished by using guns and might, those same radicals took intellectual pains to establish liberty in perpetuity by dividing all pockets of power in their (our) seminal republic.

Federalism ( inter alia) was thus born.

“Do we see any larger waves on the horizon or is the cementing of federal power better perceived as a one-way crystallization of hierarchy -- a sedimentary, unyielding compression?”

That concern is too deep for me. My only reply is to say that my life, and the lives of those I know most, are intertwined with government more locally than nationally ( I.e., state vs. feds) to the extent there’s any serious intercourse at all. I pay taxes, I salute the military, I obey the laws.

That reassures me that we haven’t yet been devoured by The DC Leviathan and, in a more apposite sense, reassures me that federalism still retains its political soul.

Ps. I meant 1776-1787