Author Topic: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing  (Read 1182 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 85,420
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 27,619
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #1 on: December 28, 2013, 09:35:07 AM »
John Locke and a LOT of others as well!

Offline xfreeper

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,546
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2013, 10:23:22 AM »

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 27,619
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2013, 10:32:33 AM »

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 85,420
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2013, 10:37:33 AM »
Vote EVERY member of congress out of office for three consecutive house elections and in 6 years EVERY member of congress will have been sent packing at least once.  This would send a clear message about who rules the country. :patriot:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

Online andy58-in-nh

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,576
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #5 on: December 28, 2013, 10:41:08 AM »
Vote EVERY member of congress out of office for three consecutive house elections and in 6 years EVERY member of congress will have been sent packing at least once.  This would send a clear message about who rules the country. :patriot:

Term limits would accomplish the same thing. I have been skeptical in the past about such limits, but the institutional corruption and centralization of power in the Capital District have made them necessary, in my opinion.
We are entering revolutionary times. The law is no longer equally applied. The media are the ministry of truth. The Democratic party is a revolutionary force. And it is all getting scary. -VDH

Offline xfreeper

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,546
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #6 on: December 28, 2013, 10:43:48 AM »
I think there must be a process to undo just as there was a process that got us to where we are.  I think the first order of business in that process should be to get rid of the Marxist income tax and the IRS and return to the sort of taxation that our founders universally endorsed i.e. taxes on article of consumption only! That process is well underway already as there are currently bills before both houses of congress (HR25/S122) that would do EXACTLY that! (The house version will receive it's first ever vote in the Ways and Means committee this spring.)

After that is done we must repeal both the 16th and 17th amendments and work forward from there. At least that's the way forward as I see it!

I don't believe the beast will ever support starving the beast

Online 240B

  • Lord of all things Orange!
  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,545
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #7 on: December 28, 2013, 11:00:13 AM »
There will never be term limits. Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin. We no longer have a 'congress' in the classic definition. What we have is much closer to the classic definition of a Politburo, in which the incumbent almost always wins reelection no matter how hated they may be. The voting system in America is as corrupt and unreliable as you would find in Zimbabwe or South America.
 
Change will come because it simply has to. The children running the government are driving our nation into the ground. It simply cannot last and go on this way.
 
However, and it gives me no pleasure to say this, it is going to take some modern Bastille day, a cataclysmic, near apocalyptic event to shake those leeches in D.C. off of our blood. They are drunk with it and they will never let go until some force, either internal or external, leaves them with no choice. Just my opinion.
You cannot "COEXIST" with people who want to kill you.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 27,619
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #8 on: December 28, 2013, 11:09:22 AM »
I don't believe the beast will ever support starving the beast

They will only if enough of us make it plain to them that it's our way or the highway!

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 27,619
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2013, 11:16:41 AM »
Term limits would accomplish the same thing. I have been skeptical in the past about such limits, but the institutional corruption and centralization of power in the Capital District have made them necessary, in my opinion.

I disagree! We should re-elect, or not, based on the performance of each and every individual involved instead of setting some arbitrary limit as to how long one can serve. To do that requires that WE must pay attention to what they actually DO and not what they say at election time!

Offline Cincinnatus

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,514
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #10 on: December 28, 2013, 11:58:47 AM »
Adopting policies whereby Congressional members are changed more often than is now the case is a good idea but is only half the loaf. We must reduce the federal bureaucracy also.

Congresscritters by and large have become little more than overpaid personal valets whose main function is to find out why Aunt Gertie's Social Security check is late. The real power lies with the unelected bureaucrats who issue regulations and make rules which affect us all. There are far, far too many of them and they wield far too much power.
We shall never be abandoned by Heaven while we act worthy of its aid ~~ Samuel Adams

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 27,619
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #11 on: December 28, 2013, 12:04:53 PM »
Adopting policies whereby Congressional members are changed more often than is now the case is a good idea but is only half the loaf. We must reduce the federal bureaucracy also.

Congresscritters by and large have become little more than overpaid personal valets whose main function is to find out why Aunt Gertie's Social Security check is late. The real power lies with the unelected bureaucrats who issue regulations and make rules which affect us all. There are far, far too many of them and they wield far too much power.

Man ore you ever singing off my sheet of music!

The unelected, and largely unfireable,  Unelected Washington bureaucrats are far more powerfully that the elected officials they supposedly serve!

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 49,962
  • TBR Illuminati
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #12 on: December 28, 2013, 12:06:34 PM »
I think there must be a process to undo just as there was a process that got us to where we are.  I think the first order of business in that process should be to get rid of the Marxist income tax and the IRS and return to the sort of taxation that our founders universally endorsed i.e. taxes on article of consumption only! That process is well underway already as there are currently bills before both houses of congress (HR25/S122) that would do EXACTLY that! (The house version will receive it's first ever vote in the Ways and Means committee this spring.)

After that is done we must repeal both the 16th and 17th amendments and work forward from there. At least that's the way forward as I see it!

The Founders also universally endorsed taxation of the income from personal services, which was traditionally taxed as an excise tax on the privilege of exercising a particular profession or employment.  If you doubt me, then you should go read the opinions in the Income Tax Cases more carefully.

Offline xfreeper

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,546
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #13 on: December 28, 2013, 12:12:50 PM »
« Last Edit: December 28, 2013, 04:53:28 PM by xfreeper »

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 27,619
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #14 on: December 28, 2013, 12:27:36 PM »
The Founders also universally endorsed taxation of the income from personal services, which was traditionally taxed as an excise tax on the privilege of exercising a particular profession or employment.  If you doubt me, then you should go read the opinions in the Income Tax Cases more carefully.

What they agreed to is this from Article one Section eight of the U.S. Constitution:

Quote
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Until the 16th amendment along:
Quote
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

And what they INTENDED is made very clear in The Federalist #21 by Hamilton to which there was no anti federalist response:

Quote
The Federalist No. 21
Other Defects of the Present Confederation
Independent Journal
Wednesday, December 12, 1787
[Alexander Hamilton]
To the People of the State of New York:

HAVING in the three last numbers taken a summary review of the principal circumstances and events which have depicted the genius and fate of other confederate governments, I shall now proceed in the enumeration of the most important of those defects which have hitherto disappointed our hopes from the system established among ourselves. To form a safe and satisfactory judgment of the proper remedy, it is absolutely necessary that we should be well acquainted with the extent and malignity of the disease.

The next most palpable defect of the subsisting Confederation, is the total want of a SANCTION to its laws. The United States, as now composed, have no powers to exact obedience, or punish disobedience to their resolutions, either by pecuniary mulcts, by a suspension or divestiture of privileges, or by any other constitutional mode. There is no express delegation of authority to them to use force against delinquent members; and if such a right should be ascribed to the federal head, as resulting from the nature of the social compact between the States, it must be by inference and construction, in the face of that part of the second article, by which it is declared, "that each State shall retain every power, jurisdiction, and right, not expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." There is, doubtless, a striking absurdity in supposing that a right of this kind does not exist, but we are reduced to the dilemma either of embracing that supposition, preposterous as it may seem, or of contravening or explaining away a provision, which has been of late a repeated theme of the eulogies of those who oppose the new Constitution; and the want of which, in that plan, has been the subject of much plausible animadversion, and severe criticism. If we are unwilling to impair the force of this applauded provision, we shall be obliged to conclude, that the United States afford the extraordinary spectacle of a government destitute even of the shadow of constitutional power to enforce the execution of its own laws. It will appear, from the specimens which have been cited, that the American Confederacy, in this particular, stands discriminated from every other institution of a similar kind, and exhibits a new and unexampled phenomenon in the political world.

The want of a mutual guaranty of the State governments is another capital imperfection in the federal plan. There is nothing of this kind declared in the articles that compose it; and to imply a tacit guaranty from considerations of utility, would be a still more flagrant departure from the clause which has been mentioned, than to imply a tacit power of coercion from the like considerations. The want of a guaranty, though it might in its consequences endanger the Union, does not so immediately attack its existence as the want of a constitutional sanction to its laws.

Without a guaranty the assistance to be derived from the Union in repelling those domestic dangers which may sometimes threaten the existence of the State constitutions, must be renounced. Usurpation may rear its crest in each State, and trample upon the liberties of the people, while the national government could legally do nothing more than behold its encroachments with indignation and regret. A successful faction may erect a tyranny on the ruins of order and law, while no succor could constitutionally be afforded by the Union to the friends and supporters of the government. The tempestuous situation from which Massachusetts has scarcely emerged, evinces that dangers of this kind are not merely speculative. Who can determine what might have been the issue of her late convulsions, if the malcontents had been headed by a Caesar or by a Cromwell? Who can predict what effect a despotism, established in Massachusetts, would have upon the liberties of New Hampshire or Rhode Island, of Connecticut or New York?

The inordinate pride of State importance has suggested to some minds an objection to the principle of a guaranty in the federal government, as involving an officious interference in the domestic concerns of the members. A scruple of this kind would deprive us of one of the principal advantages to be expected from union, and can only flow from a misapprehension of the nature of the provision itself. It could be no impediment to reforms of the State constitution by a majority of the people in a legal and peaceable mode. This right would remain undiminished. The guaranty could only operate against changes to be effected by violence. Towards the preventions of calamities of this kind, too many checks cannot be provided. The peace of society and the stability of government depend absolutely on the efficacy of the precautions adopted on this head. Where the whole power of the government is in the hands of the people, there is the less pretense for the use of violent remedies in partial or occasional distempers of the State. The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men. A guaranty by the national authority would be as much levelled against the usurpations of rulers as against the ferments and outrages of faction and sedition in the community.

The principle of regulating the contributions of the States to the common treasury by QUOTAS is another fundamental error in the Confederation. Its repugnancy to an adequate supply of the national exigencies has been already pointed out, and has sufficiently appeared from the trial which has been made of it. I speak of it now solely with a view to equality among the States. Those who have been accustomed to contemplate the circumstances which produce and constitute national wealth, must be satisfied that there is no common standard or barometer by which the degrees of it can be ascertained. Neither the value of lands, nor the numbers of the people, which have been successively proposed as the rule of State contributions, has any pretension to being a just representative. If we compare the wealth of the United Netherlands with that of Russia or Germany, or even of France, and if we at the same time compare the total value of the lands and the aggregate population of that contracted district with the total value of the lands and the aggregate population of the immense regions of either of the three last-mentioned countries, we shall at once discover that there is no comparison between the proportion of either of these two objects and that of the relative wealth of those nations. If the like parallel were to be run between several of the American States, it would furnish a like result. Let Virginia be contrasted with North Carolina, Pennsylvania with Connecticut, or Maryland with New Jersey, and we shall be convinced that the respective abilities of those States, in relation to revenue, bear little or no analogy to their comparative stock in lands or to their comparative population. The position may be equally illustrated by a similar process between the counties of the same State. No man who is acquainted with the State of New York will doubt that the active wealth of King's County bears a much greater proportion to that of Montgomery than it would appear to be if we should take either the total value of the lands or the total number of the people as a criterion!

The wealth of nations depends upon an infinite variety of causes. Situation, soil, climate, the nature of the productions, the nature of the government, the genius of the citizens, the degree of information they possess, the state of commerce, of arts, of industry, these circumstances and many more, too complex, minute, or adventitious to admit of a particular specification, occasion differences hardly conceivable in the relative opulence and riches of different countries. The consequence clearly is that there can be no common measure of national wealth, and, of course, no general or stationary rule by which the ability of a state to pay taxes can be determined. The attempt, therefore, to regulate the contributions of the members of a confederacy by any such rule, cannot fail to be productive of glaring inequality and extreme oppression.

This inequality would of itself be sufficient in America to work the eventual destruction of the Union, if any mode of enforcing a compliance with its requisitions could be devised. The suffering States would not long consent to remain associated upon a principle which distributes the public burdens with so unequal a hand, and which was calculated to impoverish and oppress the citizens of some States, while those of others would scarcely be conscious of the small proportion of the weight they were required to sustain. This, however, is an evil inseparable from the principle of quotas and requisitions.

There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.

Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country. Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment. Either the value of land, or the number of the people, may serve as a standard. The state of agriculture and the populousness of a country have been considered as nearly connected with each other. And, as a rule, for the purpose intended, numbers, in the view of simplicity and certainty, are entitled to a preference. In every country it is a herculean task to obtain a valuation of the land; in a country imperfectly settled and progressive in improvement, the difficulties are increased almost to impracticability. The expense of an accurate valuation is, in all situations, a formidable objection. In a branch of taxation where no limits to the discretion of the government are to be found in the nature of things, the establishment of a fixed rule, not incompatible with the end, may be attended with fewer inconveniences than to leave that discretion altogether at large.

PUBLIUS


« Last Edit: December 28, 2013, 12:28:23 PM by Bigun »

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 49,962
  • TBR Illuminati
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #15 on: December 28, 2013, 01:34:09 PM »
What they agreed to is this from Article one Section eight of the U.S. Constitution:

Until the 16th amendment along:
And what they INTENDED is made very clear in The Federalist #21 by Hamilton to which there was no anti federalist response:




/snicker

A dictionary definition of "excise tax":
Quote
Excise

A tax imposed on the performance of an act, the engaging in an occupation, or the enjoyment of a privilege.  A tax on the manufacture, sale, or use of goods or on the carrying on of an occupation or activity, or a tax on the transfer of property.  In current usage the term has been extended to include various license fees and practically every internal revenue tax except the Income Tax (e.g., federal alcohol and tobacco excise taxes).

I've highlighted the important part for you.

And, while you might be conversant with the Federalist papers, your facility with them is almost certainly less than that of the justices of the Supreme Court in 1895, but a short 106 years from the writing of the Federalist papers and the ratification of the Constitution.  In that respect, after having thoroughly canvassed the Federalist papers and all other manner of sources, in both of the two cases:  Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), the Supreme Court held, with respect to the income tax on income from personal services:
Quote
We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such.
158 U.S. 601 at 635.

In other words, those who were more familiar with the circumstances surrounding the drafting and ratification of the Constitution, including the Federalist papers - and the subsequent remarks and statements by the authors of the Federalist papers - had no trouble whatsoever concluding that the income tax as it applied to income from business, privileges, or employments - that is, deriving income from the performance of personal services - was nothing more than a garden variety excise tax.

Since the Constitution grants Congress the power to lay excise taxes, it necessarily follows that, within the contemplation and intent of the Founders, under the Constitution as originally drafted, Congress had the power to tax wages, salaries and other income from performing personal services.

As such, the only point of the Sixteenth Amendment was to permit Congress to levy a tax on income derived from real property and capital; it had no relevance to a tax on wages, salaries and other compensation for personal services because Congress already possessed sufficient power to impose such a tax.

You are more than welcome to argue to the contrary, but you're arguing against the Constitution itself, the understanding of the Founders and the authors of the Federalist papers, and the learned opinions of the justices of the Supreme Court.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 27,619
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #16 on: December 28, 2013, 02:05:55 PM »
/snicker

A dictionary definition of "excise tax":
I've highlighted the important part for you.

And, while you might be conversant with the Federalist papers, your facility with them is almost certainly less than that of the justices of the Supreme Court in 1895, but a short 106 years from the writing of the Federalist papers and the ratification of the Constitution.  In that respect, after having thoroughly canvassed the Federalist papers and all other manner of sources, in both of the two cases:  Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), the Supreme Court held, with respect to the income tax on income from personal services:158 U.S. 601 at 635.

In other words, those who were more familiar with the circumstances surrounding the drafting and ratification of the Constitution, including the Federalist papers - and the subsequent remarks and statements by the authors of the Federalist papers - had no trouble whatsoever concluding that the income tax as it applied to income from business, privileges, or employments - that is, deriving income from the performance of personal services - was nothing more than a garden variety excise tax.

Since the Constitution grants Congress the power to lay excise taxes, it necessarily follows that, within the contemplation and intent of the Founders, under the Constitution as originally drafted, Congress had the power to tax wages, salaries and other income from performing personal services.

As such, the only point of the Sixteenth Amendment was to permit Congress to levy a tax on income derived from real property and capital; it had no relevance to a tax on wages, salaries and other compensation for personal services because Congress already possessed sufficient power to impose such a tax.

You are more than welcome to argue to the contrary, but you're arguing against the Constitution itself, the understanding of the Founders and the authors of the Federalist papers, and the learned opinions of the justices of the Supreme Court.

You seem to have missed this part of Article one Section Eight to whit
Quote
... Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

And if what you say is true then why the need to include the words
Quote
...and without regard to any census or enumeration.
included in the 16th amendment? 

Were they,in fact, necessary or included just because the drafters thought them to be cute?
 
« Last Edit: December 28, 2013, 02:08:19 PM by Bigun »

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 49,962
  • TBR Illuminati
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #17 on: December 28, 2013, 02:38:55 PM »

Online andy58-in-nh

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,576
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #18 on: December 28, 2013, 08:35:09 PM »
I disagree! We should re-elect, or not, based on the performance of each and every individual involved instead of setting some arbitrary limit as to how long one can serve. To do that requires that WE must pay attention to what they actually DO and not what they say at election time!

Repeal the 17th Amendment, restore Constitutional limitations on the powers of each branch of government, and limit political contributions to individuals only: then term limits will be unnecessary. As of now, our government is bought and paid for by interest groups with the deepest pockets and the loudest mouths.
We are entering revolutionary times. The law is no longer equally applied. The media are the ministry of truth. The Democratic party is a revolutionary force. And it is all getting scary. -VDH

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #19 on: December 28, 2013, 08:44:56 PM »
Repeal the 17th Amendment, restore Constitutional limitations on the powers of each branch of government, and limit political contributions to individuals only: then term limits will be unnecessary. As of now, our government is bought and paid for by interest groups with the deepest pockets and the loudest mouths.

Hands-down the most positive move would be repeal of the 17th.

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 14,126
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #20 on: December 28, 2013, 09:30:58 PM »
[[ However, and it gives me no pleasure to say this, it is going to take some modern Bastille day, a cataclysmic, near apocalyptic event to shake those leeches in D.C. off of our blood. They are drunk with it and they will never let go until some force, either internal or external, leaves them with no choice. Just my opinion. ]]

Your thoughts addressed in my post here:
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,124331.msg504792.html#msg504792

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 49,962
  • TBR Illuminati
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #21 on: December 28, 2013, 09:37:34 PM »
Repeal the 17th Amendment, restore Constitutional limitations on the powers of each branch of government, and limit political contributions to individuals only: then term limits will be unnecessary. As of now, our government is bought and paid for by interest groups with the deepest pockets and the loudest mouths.

I agree with repealing the 17th Amendment; however, I am not so sanguine about limiting political contributions to individuals only.  Are you saying that no group of two or more individuals should be allowed to pool their resources and make their political contributions as a group rather than as two disparate individuals?  Wouldn't it be more useful to simply require that every individual participating, directly or indirectly, in any sort of collective entity, like a corporation, partnership, union, or other association, be identified with specificity, so that the vested interests that might lie behind any political contribution can be more readily identified?

Offline xfreeper

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,546
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #22 on: December 28, 2013, 09:47:28 PM »
Hands-down the most positive move would be repeal of the 17th.

OK please help me out a little on this one. I see it's a popular suggestion. I don't understand how it would be a big help. Not saying I disagree. Just saying I don't understand the approach. I'm sure there is a good explanation, I just haven't been informed yet.

OOOOK. Never mind. I get the concept.
Repeal of the 17th Amendment makes United States senators directly appointed by the state legislatures, as they were at our nation's founding, and representative of the will of each state and its citizens.  This action would check the federal government's proclivity to pass laws binding the states to unfunded mandates.  It would increase the sovereignty of the several states and restore true federalism back into our system of government.

Have to think about that a bit. My initial thought is it sounds good but I'm not sure the intended consequence would be the actual result. What's to prevent collusion between the state and federal legislatures and more corruption? One thing that occures to me is limiting the federal senate terms to less than 6 years. Too much time goes by in six years. A lot of damage can be done and forgotten in that period of time. It seems senators are less accountable as a result.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2013, 09:57:17 PM by xfreeper »

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #23 on: December 28, 2013, 09:55:25 PM »
OK please help me out a little on this one. I see it's a popular suggestion. I don't understand how it would be a big help. Not saying I disagree. Just saying I don't understand the approach. I'm sure there is a good explanation, I just haven't been informed yet.

Before the 17th was passed our local representatives went to the state capital and elected our senators to represent us in Washington.  Since they were dependent on the locals to elect them they actually had to pay attention to what was going on back home instead of what we have now - every six-years-lip service.  It also gave the rural counties a better say in their DC Senatorial representation. Today most senators receive the money to run for office from K-Street - not their constituents.  K-Street money - aka crony Capitalism - has pretty well destroyed the senate IMHO, while congressmen - being closer to their electorate  - are more beholden to answering to their voters than senators. 

A good example is Mitch McConnell. When he left college - not a wealthy man - he went to DC and has been there his entire life. Today he is worth 90 million dollars.  Ask yourself how a professional representative of the people grew that wealthy on the salary we pay our senators and congressmen?

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #24 on: December 28, 2013, 09:56:39 PM »
BTW there is one state which does a bit of what we did before the 17th was passed. That state is Utah where they hold a nominating convention for the senate and an incumbent is not a done-deal. It is how they managed to get rid of Bennett and elect Mike Lee.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf