Who am I?

[Cavs1123]

i win!!!! what do i get???

[WTL]

banned if you dont shut up

[nofearengineer]

LMAO! This thread has EVERYONE cranky!!

[MississippiBoy]

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

LMAO! This thread has EVERYONE cranky!!

You shut the h377 up!!!

[WTL]

Anything that makes it easier for the Federal Government to become more massive and powerful than other branches has hurt.

First look at the income tax. It is true that if it had been kept to the levels anticipated when it was passed (it was originally meant to only affect the 200 most wealthy families in America at a rate of around %1) then it would not have mattered so much. But since they have expanded the level of taxation to the same extent that they have expanded spending, its clear that it is the income tax that in part enables the spending in the first place. Eliminate the tax and you do more to cut the spending than anything I can imagine.

Direct election to the Senate is the bigger issue is a more direct example of a check being eliminated.

Get your mind set here on the subject of checks and balances. Imagine all the different ways the founders inserted into our wacky system that would make sure we didnt have 1 party, 1 branch of government, 1 type of place, 1 anything - to get too much power. You have the electoral college, which ensures rural areas a voice. You have vetoes. Overrides. A Supreme Court which nominated by the executive and approved by congress is life tenured. This court can declare laws unconstitutional. Hell, heres a chart....


OK. And once upon a time, on that chart, it would have said Senators; 6 year terms elected by state representatives to make sure the states have a voice.

See, anywhere you can tie one branch of government or one level of government to another is a balance designed to limit the monopoly use of power. Thats why we have legislative executive and judicial and federal state and local government.

But when you take away 1 leg that is protecting the states, and give direct election of senators to the people, you allow the Federal government to get away with no longer respecting state soveriegnty. It is just what the name says, direct election from the people to the Senate. That we already had that before, in the House, shows that it is important to have some ties between the federal gov't and the people. There is a reason for that. We just overdid it. Aks yourself what is even the effective difference between Senators and Congressmen today? A Senator is now nothing more than a super congressman. A popularly elected big-wig of the Federal government who to remain in power has his pulse on huge sums of money (campaign donations) and pet issues of his constituency (hearings on NCAA playoffs, gay marriage, toy arrow factories and worthless resolutions). They are high profile jokes.


The people when they vote for Senators do not represent the states interest. They represent their own private interests. If they have a carrot wagged in their face, like stimulus money, they will vote for the Senators who are willing to give away state sovereignty to the Federal government in exchange for money. So ask yourself, who is protecting the power and sovereignty of individual states? What is left? What check? What balance?

For almost 100 years since the 17th amendment, we had one last line of defense, in its own right that had been abused.

1 of the original of the Bill of Rights. 10th Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

But that one is effectively ignored.

[bamabassman]

very accruate wtl. vey accruate. this goes to show just how big and overpowered our government is. i think we need to have all our senators, reps. serve 2 terms ONLY. just like the president. only 2 terms. then they won't get so much power i think. goes for the highest court too.

[brushhog]

WTL, Are we talk about the system here, our do you feel it is a larger issue.. Human nature - Greed - the evolved egocentric nature of Americans???

Your argument against direct election to the senate is sound. I do believe the intent of the founding fathers was as you said to have two bodies that derived their power by separate means!
However, I believe that senator by appointment would eventually be just as corrupt a system. Who would be the state reps who appoint that Senator... I don't know Alabama politics, but here in New York it would eventually be corrupt minded people who would expect there pork in return for the appointment.

The days of a high minded gentleman farmer leaving his farm to serve his country for six years and then returning quietly home so someone else can serve are sadly gone.

(SIGH) so where do we go... I do still believe in the greatness of our country and the ideals set forth in our constitution. I believe we need to keep in mind, historically, we are a country that is still relatively young... I believe we can still get it right if we do one thing..........

WTL for President! And we need a running mate from the forum, well Mr. President who would it be??

[WTL]

Buzz Wing would be my natural first choice for runningmate.

I also post on a libertarian message board where, believe it or not, I passionately advocated political pragmatism just the other day.

You see, some people on the fringes are able to delude themselves into thinking that their way of doing things would be a utopian type ideal, if only tried. I dont.

Human nature cannot be changed. So its useless to cry about it. To answer your question, I spend my time complaining about the system and I just try to tailor my political preferences to best restrain coercion and systematic corruption.

My working idea then, which is the same as the framers, is to break up every type of political power into as many fractions as possible. Corruption will exist, as always (and does in spades in the Alabama state legislature), but at the very least we can pit corrupt entities against other corrupt entities and try to keep it from be the same corrupt entity over all. Madison argued this in Federalist paper #10. Its a basic principle of the Constitution. Its a common mistake that people make about the framers to assume they thought they were creating a perfect system. They were making an imperfect republic for imperfect people.

[nofearengineer]

Ahhhh...the classic Madison-Hamiltonian juxtaposition...I never thought this would come up on a bass fishing board.

[brushhog]

Buzz Wing! Tremendous, priceless. Tell me that choice was off the top of your head and you are my new comedic idol!

I just read a good historical fiction about the framers, written by the same guy who wrote Gods and Generals, Last Full Measure, Killer Angels, Shaara I think his name may be. He makes teh same point regarding the structuring of the early gov't. They knew where the problems were and attempted to minimize them, but knew that some where inescapable.

Just so we can feel really intellectual, after the Madison/ Hamilton bomb dropped by Nofear. I though my favorite Machiavelli (I think its him) quote could be appropriate here.

“each candidate behaved well in the hope of being judged worthy of election. However, this system was disastrous when the city had become corrupt. For then it was not the most virtuous but the most powerful who stood for election, and the weak, even if virtuous, were too frightened to run for office.”

[bamabassman]

wtl, just make me sec. of war ok? first thing is war on PETA! nuke em, hahahahahahaha.