It's ridiculous isn't it? Germany under Hitler was a fascist state, so that complete state control is justified because that's just how it was organized. You don't have to like it! So dumb.

Ah, it only took four pages to mention Hitler.

Better than thinking something justifies itself by its mere existence.

This isn't even an argument! — Maw

If you think the US Senate shouldn't exist, then you have to deal with the reality of the states as well, since that's the reason for the Senate existing.

Because Hitler was bad?

Because you're not particularly bright.

So, the Senate is undemocratic therefore it's bad and thus should be abolished, irregardless of existing political realities. That's the argument being presented in this thread.

@StreetlightX I read certain comments on the internet and just stare at them in disbelief and it feels like the screen of my computer becomes some sort of window looking out into a hellish void.

"An existing political reality ought to be altered irregardless of existing political realities".

That's how dumb you sound.

And you sound irrational.

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

Sorry, I'm not smart enough understand the question. I see on-line the 17th amendment was ratified 1913. Before that, senators were chosen by state senators. That is, from the "state" directly to the people. Is that what you mean by an erosion of federalism? I also am ignorant of how or why that amendment even came to be.

I'm thinking - imo, in other words - that federalism has been mainly a good thing. Develop your thought a little more?

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. Why can't Americans flatter themselves as being democratic even if they're not?

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

True that the politicians do this. Also true that I wish for a better system despite politicians’ collective hypocrisy.

You have to read between the lines. — Noah Te Stroete

Not when the lines are clear.

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

As you should.

Always upholding precedent - because it happened - will lead to repeating mistakes.

Always upholding precedent - because it happened - will lead to repeating mistakes. — creativesoul

Ah, yes. The bane of common law.

My apologies for making the question opaque.

I appreciate federalism for a certain liberty (allowing each state to vary its obligations and prohibitions to the interests of its citizens) but also for the experimental component (50 'petri dishes' to suss out a more effective solution to governance).

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.

My question was along the lines of whether a movement to repeal the 17th Amendment has ever gained any momentum. My suspicion is that the structure that existed prior to the 17th can never be regenerated, if only because the direct election represents a power that the People will never give up.

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.

An article arguing for the repeal of the 17th here.

I don't take the premise cited (in the article) for the ratification of the 17th Amendment on faith any more than I buy the argument of those opposed to the EC that it was the tool of slave holders. Finding (via Google searches) historians that share evidence without regard for an agenda is not a trivial thing.

I find this at Wiki:
"Federalism is the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or "federal" government) with regional governments (provincial, state, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism by the United States under the Constitution of 1787, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established. It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.

I will take this as our understanding/definition of federalism - unless you change it. 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, both for lots of good reasons, which they argued out at length in print.

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*

the argument of those opposed to the EC that it was the tool of slave holders. — 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.

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

This is religious bullshit. Pardon my French, and God bless you. I don’t agree with what you’ve said, but I will defend to the death of me your right to say it.

This is religious bullshit. — Noah Te Stroete

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.

I disagree with the deifying of men who owned slaves and oppressed women.

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

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.)

Bingham’s interest wasn’t to grant the feds more, or the states less, power; his principal concern was to erode the Black Codes and to provide equal protection to all of his fellow citizens.

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

I disagree.

I can't see this conversation leading anywhere useful.

It's always kinda funny to watch Americans suckling at the teet of their daddies. Sorry, 'founding daddies'. 'What would daddy think of this?!' being the neurotic, pre-pubescent axis upon which political action apparently ought to be judged.

I just want to fuck the founding fathers

being the neurotic, pre-pubescent axis upon which political action apparently ought to be judged. — StreetlightX

Exactly! You can’t even bring up anything in politics with conservatives without them invoking the founding fathers, as if conservatives know what the fathers would say if they lived in the here and now. This isn’t 1787!

I disagree with the deifying of men who owned slaves and oppressed women. — Noah Te Stroete

Well, apparently you don't want to to - like Maw - fuck them. But your complaint is a non-sequitor. Try making sense and being responsive. You said my post above was bullshit. i asked what part. Try to address that.