Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the American civil war really over??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Julie View Post

    There was a line drawn in that Constitution as to the powers of the Central Government, and it has long been crossed.
    You won't find much disagreement there not here at least. However where the government is today vs the question of secession are two different things. States do not have the right to secede, they do have the power to control federal spending if they would simply exercise it, but too many states are willing to be bought off with other states money. A simple constitutional amendment to limit federal spending to federal revenues would be easy to write, we almost got one in the 70's. However its passing has eleuded us.

    If the Federal Government has all this authority, what is the point in having individual states then?

    Please, someone answer me that.
    Local responsiveness, here in Arkansas we keep our government on a short leash- they meet 1x every 2 years except for special committees, they cannot spend money we do not have, the power to tax primary residences is severely curtailed- I don't pay the government rent (property taxes) for my land thanks to the Homestead Act. Our sales tax is average (6.25%), our car taxes and permit fees are low (my wife's 2005 Vibe cost $29 to tag and the only permit I needed when buildign my house was a perc test), our income tax is low... We don't have a lot of the bells and whistles but looking at our unemployment and tax rate compared to the nations that is not a bad thing. Our blight is the Delta Region but we are even taking steps there having equalized funding for schools and teacher salaries (minimum levels) despite property values

    Leave a comment:


  • Julie
    replied
    Originally posted by Shek View Post
    I guess the Georgia legislature didn't want to lose an additional source of revenue. Maybe that's where Blagojevich learned his tricks from :))
    Ha-ha...very funny.

    The framers’ legislative design was subtle, but ingenious: While a Member of the House would represent the interests of the people as citizens, a Senator would represent the very different interests of the people’s sovereign state governments. This structure embodied the original meaning of the term “separation of powers.” The legislature would domicile two distinct powers (the people and the states) to compete bill by bill for the direction and scope of the federal government.

    Representatives to the House, with only two short years to prove their worth to constituents, would demand governmental activity at any cost. Envoys to the Senate, the voices of state legislatures primarily interested in keeping political power closest to where the people live, would limit the federal government’s growth. The framers gave the Senate functions different from that of the House, such as the confirmation of judges and Cabinet appointees, presuming that the emissaries of the states would approve only of those nominees possessing a view of government not precluding the states from first providing for their own citizens’ needs. In this way, the Senate was guarding the constitutional henhouse.

    In 1913, the 17th Amendment and the popular elections of Senators turned the henhouse over to the hound dog. While current representatives to the House and Senate have different (though overlapping) geographic constituencies, they have extraordinarily similar interests: the properly intemperate and unfiltered will of the people, and the special interest groups that fuel campaigns. There is no longer the competition of disparate interests the framers believed was required to keep the federal government responsive, yet moderate in tone and scope.

    The 17th Amendment was proposed and ratified primarily on the strength of these two arguments: 1. The selection of Senators by legislatures was irredeemably corrupt. Some Senators were accused of “buying” their seats from state legislatures, either through cash payments or through loyal service to party machines. 2. “The will of the people” is best expressed through popular elections.

    Consider these arguments in turn.

    First, if the primary purpose of the 17th was to eradicate corruption from Senatorial selection, it failed brilliantly at doing so. Far too many contemporary examples exist to suggest otherwise. Corruption will always be a part of politics and must be dealt with aggressively, but altering the foundational structure of the Constitution in order to wave a hand at corruption was profoundly misguided.

    Second, the purpose of the Constitution is to establish a government of the people, by the people and for the people, but the framers did not intend to make the federal government an instrument of mob rule. The long history of failed civilizations taught them that democracy has practical limits, and those limits include a majority’s tendency to disregard minority views and financial bankruptcy.

    The Senate was designed to serve the people, but not as a democratic body. Some have suggested that this was because the framers — as elitists — distrusted the people. There is little evidence to back this up. The framers each came from states where almost every feature of the state government — from the governor to the local magistrate — was democratically determined, and the framers made the will of the people well-represented in the House. It certainly was not the case that after fighting a war of independence from titled privilege, they wanted to secure a place for an aristocracy they all despised, as is suggested by others.

    The framers made the Senate a non-democratic body because they believed that when democracy’s limits are reached, citizens lose their liberty and governments go broke. (Hellooo, ring a bell?) :))

    As Sen. Zell Miller, Democrat of Georgia, put it, “Direct elections of Senators … allowed Washington’s special interests to call the shots, whether it is filling judicial vacancies, passing laws, or issuing regulations.”

    Leave a comment:


  • Station 22
    replied
    Originally posted by Shek View Post
    I am amazed the state governments ratified the 17th Amendment. I can only surmise that the poplulist movements in force during the era had a large part to play in the desire to change the election method. It certainly was a component of the further lessening of States' Rights. Note what large block of states has never ratified the amendment.
    Only two amendments since the end of the Civil war has been ratified by all states, so it's really not a surprise. After you have 3/4 of the states, it's pro forma at that point.
    I didn't mention unanimous ratification, you did. I am simply amazed that it was ratified by the requisite number of states to begin with. Does it matter that several states violated their own laws to ratify it? I guess not.

    First, they were proposed at different times, so they are not entangled from a legislative perspective.
    How does the time of the proposals have anything to do with the resultant affects of their enacting, which was less than 4 months apart.
    However, you are now changing your thesis, which before was that it was the 17th Amendment - now your new thesis is that it was the 16th and 17th Amendment that led to the increase in spending.
    Does it matter? The two go hand in hand, available taxation and lack of State government oversight on the voting habits of the individuals originally tasked by those who authored the original document to protect the the interests of the individual States.
    So, while my inquiry is still pretty much the same, I will ask it from a different angle. Please provide evidence that without the direct election of Senators (which had become a defacto reality in the majority of states before the amendment even was proposed), federal spending would not have increased. In other words, in the absence of direct elections for Senators but with a means to implement an income tax, why would Congress not choose to raise additional revenues and then spend them?
    Prove a negative, in other words? What other governmental changes were enacted in the 5-10 years prior to 1920 that would have a direct effect on changes on how Federal tax dollars are spent? The end of decentralized budget discussion by the Senate? Possibly, but with the ability raise revenue and without State oversight of the Senator's actions, then that would merely be a procedural change.
    Also, you never answered my question as to why the states chose to place the question of electing Senators directly with the people as opposed to with the state legislature.
    I am sure your thoughts on this will differ from mine. It was another of those feel-good, class-envy initiatives proposed by populists. Don't worry about income tax, only the filthy rich will have to pay it. You should be able to choose your own senator and take the power away from the corrupt state legislature.
    Last edited by Station 22; 08 Dec 09,, 04:44.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shek
    replied
    Originally posted by Julie View Post
    The corruption of the Senate election process would seem to have started with the corruption of original intent as early as the Jacksonian Era. That intent, contrary to Progressive belief, was that the role of the people would be limited to choosing good legislators at the local level, and trusting the hierarchical system of representation to filter and refine popular sentiments in the appointment of senators. The eventual failure of the original method of elections was as much an indictment of the people themselves as it was of the system. Having proven incompetent in the election of honest legislators, their proposed reform consisted of transferring Senate elections from the "corrupt" few, directly to the incompetent many.
    Julie,

    Corrupt state legislatures captured by special interests was one of the reasons from what I've seen for going to direct elections. Thus, spending induced by special interests was already part of the problem and not pursuant to direct elections.

    However, rather than singling out the people in this case, I'd submit that it's the incentives of political office that make suboptimal policy with regards to the use of government revenues endemic to the process.

    Originally posted by Julie
    Georgia did not ratify the amendment btw.
    I guess the Georgia legislature didn't want to lose an additional source of revenue. Maybe that's where Blagojevich learned his tricks from :))

    Leave a comment:


  • Julie
    replied
    The corruption of the Senate election process would seem to have started with the corruption of original intent as early as the Jacksonian Era. That intent, contrary to Progressive belief, was that the role of the people would be limited to choosing good legislators at the local level, and trusting the hierarchical system of representation to filter and refine popular sentiments in the appointment of senators. The eventual failure of the original method of elections was as much an indictment of the people themselves as it was of the system. Having proven incompetent in the election of honest legislators, their proposed reform consisted of transferring Senate elections from the "corrupt" few, directly to the incompetent many.

    Georgia did not ratify the amendment btw.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shek
    replied
    Originally posted by Station 22 View Post
    Please look at the chart here titled US Federal government spending and note when the spike in Federal spending occured
    I am amazed the state governments ratified the 17th Amendment. I can only surmise that the poplulist movements in force during the era had a large part to play in the desire to change the election method. It certainly was a component of the further lessening of States' Rights. Note what large block of states has never ratified the amendment.[/quote]

    Only two amendments since the end of the Civil war has been ratified by all states, so it's really not a surprise. After you have 3/4 of the states, it's pro forma at that point.

    Originally posted by Station 22
    You cannot disentangle the 16th and 17th Amendments, where profligate Federal spending is concerned-they go hand in hand. Remove the check on controlling Federal spending by allowing people to vote directly for a House and Senate that can vote one state another state's money, then essentially write a blank check for Congress to spend that money and you will get a spike in Federal spending around 1916-17. Sure, there was a war cranking up for the US at that time, but the postbellum levels of Federal spending never declined appreciably, never getting anywhere near the levels prior to 1915 and then it proceeded to climb steadily thereafter.
    First, they were proposed at different times, so they are not entangled from a legislative perspective.

    However, you are now changing your thesis, which before was that it was the 17th Amendment - now your new thesis is that it was the 16th and 17th Amendment that led to the increase in spending.

    So, while my inquiry is still pretty much the same, I will ask it from a different angle. Please provide evidence that without the direct election of Senators (which had become a defacto reality in the majority of states before the amendment even was proposed), federal spending would not have increased. In other words, in the absence of direct elections for Senators but with a means to implement an income tax, why would Congress not choose to raise additional revenues and then spend them?

    Also, you never answered my question as to why the states chose to place the question of electing Senators directly with the people as opposed to with the state legislature.

    Leave a comment:


  • Julie
    replied
    Originally posted by Station 22 View Post
    Our Congress is a drunken teenage off at college.
    Not just drunk....now they are on crack.

    Leave a comment:


  • Station 22
    replied
    Please look at the chart here titled US Federal Government Spending and note when the rise in Federal spending occured.

    I am amazed the state governments ratified the 17th Amendment. I can only surmise that the poplulist movements in force during the era had a large part to play in the desire to change the election method. It certainly was a component of the further lessening of States' Rights. Note what large block of states has never ratified the amendment.

    You cannot disentangle the 16th and 17th Amendments, where profligate Federal spending is concerned-they go hand in hand. Remove the check on controlling Federal spending by allowing people to vote directly for a House and Senate that can vote one state another state's money, then essentially write a blank check for Congress to spend that money and you will get a spike in Federal spending around 1916-17. Sure, there was a war cranking up for the US at that time, but the postbellum levels of Federal spending never declined appreciably, never getting anywhere near the levels prior to 1915 and then it proceeded to climb steadily thereafter.

    Send a drunken teenager to college with daddy's credit card and tell him to spend all he wants and he will spend all he wants. Our Congress is a drunken teenage off at college.
    Last edited by Station 22; 08 Dec 09,, 03:14.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shek
    replied
    Originally posted by Station 22 View Post
    Yes, look at what the 17th Amendment has done to us. No longer are Senators beholding to the desires of the State governments, so Federal spending has blossomed since that populist change.
    Care to provide causal evidence? Please disentangle your thesis from the potential causality provided by the amendment passed just before the 17th Amendment.

    Originally posted by Station 22
    Senators were there to represent the interests of the States, not the individual. That is no longer the case; the Senate is now merely a more compact House of Reprehensibles with delusions of self importance.
    Why then did the states ratify it, let alone force the issue to come to a proposed Constitutional amendment? What were the problems cited by those in favor of the 17th Amendment?

    Leave a comment:


  • Station 22
    replied
    Originally posted by Julie View Post
    Yes as to commerce. Trade, money, taxes, but the Second Amendment was to protect the State's sovereignty against a tyrantical central government. Checks and Balances.

    If that doesn't convince you, look at our government today. The States (the people) are becoming completely engulfed by debt for generations to come.

    Call it tariffs, taxes, trade deficit....and there is nothing to stop it.

    There was a line drawn in that Constitution as to the powers of the Central Government, and it has long been crossed.

    If the Federal Government has all this authority, what is the point in having individual states then?

    Please, someone answer me that.
    Yes, look at what the 17th Amendment has done to us. No longer are Senators beholding to the desires of the State governments, so Federal spending has blossomed since that populist change. Senators were there to represent the interests of the States, not the individual. That is no longer the case; the Senate is now merely a more compact House of Reprehensibles with delusions of self importance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shek
    replied
    Originally posted by Julie View Post
    Yes as to commerce. Trade, money, taxes, but the Second Amendment was to protect the State's sovereignty against a tyrantical central government. Checks and Balances.

    If that doesn't convince you, look at our government today. The States (the people) are becoming completely engulfed by debt for generations to come.

    Call it tariffs, taxes, trade deficit....and there is nothing to stop it.

    There was a line drawn in that Constitution as to the powers of the Central Government, and it has long been crossed.

    If the Federal Government has all this authority, what is the point in having individual states then?

    Please, someone answer me that.
    Julie,

    It's the Tenth Amendment, and there's a division of sovereignty. Additional amendments have changed the relationship between the central government and the state governments as well. The reality is that people view the United States today in singular form and not in the plural. However, I'm not sure where this line of conversation is leading or what it's trying to connect back to.

    Leave a comment:


  • Julie
    replied
    Yes as to commerce. Trade, money, taxes, but the Second Amendment was to protect the State's sovereignty against a tyrantical central government. Checks and Balances.

    If that doesn't convince you, look at our government today. The States (the people) are becoming completely engulfed by debt for generations to come.

    Call it tariffs, taxes, trade deficit....and there is nothing to stop it.

    There was a line drawn in that Constitution as to the powers of the Central Government, and it has long been crossed.

    If the Federal Government has all this authority, what is the point in having individual states then?

    Please, someone answer me that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shek
    replied
    Originally posted by Julie View Post
    I like this post, so I am going to respond to it.

    I disagree about a more "powerful" government. I will say they went to the convention seeking a "stronger" government regarding stability in commerce and foreign relations, cuz we still had Britain and France as thorns in our side. I have read every note of Madisons for a three month period in that convention, and nothing can make me believe that the States relinquished their independent sovereignty as to domestic issues.

    We will have to agree to disagree.
    Z hit on many of the ways that they strengthened the federal government at the expense of the state governments on domestic issues. The fact a federal court system was set up that held sovereignty over the state courts on matters that were undertaken by the court is a direct affront to your claim that the states didn't relinquish any sovereignty, the same court system that later found Southern secession to be null and void.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Julie View Post
    I like this post, so I am going to respond to it.

    I disagree about a more "powerful" government. I will say they went to the convention seeking a "stronger" government regarding stability in commerce and foreign relations, cuz we still had Britain and France as thorns in our side. I have read every note of Madisons for a three month period in that convention, and nothing can make me believe that the States relinquished their independent sovereignty as to domestic issues.

    We will have to agree to disagree.
    They gave the Federal government- the power to regulate interstate commerce, set weights and measures, issue currency, take on debt, set taxes, run a post, set up courts, set up law enforcement... Got pretty detailed inf act but didn't mention secession except by negative inference.

    Leave a comment:


  • Julie
    replied
    Originally posted by Shek View Post
    No. They wanted a more powerful government than provided for in the Articles of Confederation. They wouldn't like the reach of the government today, but they also foresaw a need to potentially adapt the Constitution, which is why they provided a means for amendment that would follow the wishes of the people. It's also pretty clear that the vast majority of the founding fathers saw the American experiment in democracy as requiring permanency if it were to succeed, and so while they explicitly provided a means to enlarge the Union, they didn't provide a means to leave the Union, which makes complete sense. There was no need to provide a means for national suicide, as the people of a state could revolt from tyranny based on moral grounds, just as they had revolted from England based on the moral grounds laid out in the Declaration of Independence.
    I like this post, so I am going to respond to it.

    I disagree about a more "powerful" government. I will say they went to the convention seeking a "stronger" government regarding stability in commerce and foreign relations, cuz we still had Britain and France as thorns in our side. I have read every note of Madisons for a three month period in that convention, and nothing can make me believe that the States relinquished their independent sovereignty as to domestic issues.

    We will have to agree to disagree.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X