"The Constitution of the United States" Topic

Perhaps he does know there are three BRANCHES of government, but wanted to differentiate between the House and Senate which is why he used the word PIECES.

I'm pretty sure Doc Mcb is aware of the difference between "branches" and "pieces".

I'm pretty sure that some here will leave no chance by to take things out of context to personally attack and insult Doc. It seems to happen a lot, and weakens their arguments considerably.

Might I suggest dealing with what Doc actually said, not petty slashes which anyone can see through (and knock aside)?

Do you agree with Doc's assertions or not? And why?

Debate, y'all. Use evidence, logic, reason.
Or not, and we'll just all notice and think accordingly.

Three branches, one of which is bicameral, with the House and Senate elected on different bases and having different powers. So 2 plus 2 = 4.

Thanks, Parzival. It is either being petty or being dense.

I can see his point, but he was just trying to be clever. He's complaining that the Senate is now subject to Democracy. Doc fears Democracy. He much prefers Republics.
Let me grant for a moment the validity of his complaint. He fears that Democracies elect radicals. Fair enough. But what if the Senate were chosen by the state legislatures, as originally done. What makes him think that the state legislatures will have a moderating influence on the Senators they choose. Have you seen what New York or California legislatures are up to lately? And on the other side, Texas and Florida?
He's hoping for moderation from that lot? Although some on the far ends of the political spectrum might consider them perfectly reasonable.
State legislatures are even more insular and isolated than Congress. At least if directly elected, Senators answer directly to the People, not their political masters in Albany, Sacramento or Harrisburg.

John, yes, and repealing direct election of senators would only be a good start in a lot of needed reform. My own concern is more with checks and balances. The federal courts rarely mess with Congress, which has many ways of hitting back. But state legislatures are well nigh helpless against a federal judge. That was NOT the case, not nearly as much. when the legislatures chose the senators who confirmed the judges (and who would need to confirm them AGAIN if nominated to a higher bench).

Okay, quick quiz, try not to look it up. The first time the Supreme Court declared a law passed by the US Congress to be unconstitutional was Marbury v. Madison, in 1803. It kicked up quite a fuss, but was self-enforcing, because the SC limited its OWN power while claiming a much greater one (judicial review).

What was the SECOND time the SC declared a FEDERAL law to be unconstitutional? And what resulted?

John, we have to distinguish between how the system is structured and how it operates on specific issues and in the political context at various times. The executive and the legislative limit each other. Sometimes a powerful executive is needed to destroy a legislative logjam, as President LBJ did with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And sometimes Congress needs to reign in an "Imperial Presidency" or an out-of-control president, as when Congress (controlled by his own party) refused FDR's plan to pack the court.

There have been times when a federal court did a good thing in striking down bad state laws; segregation is the obvious example. But there are other times when a single un-elected federal judge strikes down good and proper state legislation which has and deserves broad popular support. Right now a state is helpless against that -- and I think should not be.

Another of my favorite quiz questions, if you think you know the Constitution:

WHO decides, and where in the Constitution says, who gets to vote in FEDERAL elections, for US House of Reps and now also for US Senate?

We've done this before, and it is not the amendments about women's suffrage or 18 year olds nor the poll tax; it is a specific clause in the original Constitution which gives the right, which is then limited in specific ways by those amendments.

John, yes, and repealing direct election of senators would only be a good start in a lot of needed reform.

Oh, I get it. Your "needed reform" can only be accomplished by rolling back democracy.
How returning election or selection of Senators to state legislatures is supposed to accomplish that is something you haven't made clear.
How about limiting suffrage to free white property owners? Is that a step in the right direction too?
How about denying the vote to anyone who accepts money from the government? And that includes salaries, WELFARE, stipends, scholarships, grants, stimulus payments…

Why not spell out what exactly your needed reforms are, besides ensuring that the Right Sort are in charge?

Another of my favorite quiz questions. Name three movies where Sean Connery sings.

Just leave it alone. It works. Its the people trying to subvert it who are the issue. State legislative bodies? No thanks to minority rule via voting restrictions and gerrymandering.

If "I Claudius" is to be believed, Claudius spent a great deal of time scheming to restore the Republic. Yet he still held "supreme" power. His nostalgia for the Republic led to Nero.
Hey, current scholarship suggests that Nero suffered from bad press. Maybe he wasn't all that bad.

Yes, and as with Rome, we can become an oligarchy while retaining the outward forms of a republic.

The SECOND time the Supreme Court declared a federal law to be unconstitutional was the Dred Scott decision, 1857, and what resulted was the Civil War.

Article One Section Two says that if your state lets you vote for the most numerous branch of its state legislature, you can then vote for US House of Representatives. The states decide who gets to vote, even today, even in federal elections.

Oh, ideally the suffrage should be limited to males over forty with a PhD. :)

Is that one if your "needed reforms"?
Good luck with that.

Please enumerate other "needed reforms".

Besides rolling back Democracy in favor of a Republic, of course. Obviously, the People can't be trusted to do the right thing.

I am ULTIMATELY a populist; the People are sovereign, and the final Natural Right is revolution. However, especially now when so many are uneducated and also dependent on government largess, a democracy easily becomes mob rule, with demagogues keeping us divided so they can stay in power.

Unfortunately our elites, our ruling class, are demonstrably corrupt and also inept.

Politics is downstream from culture, so reforming the educational system is the first priority.

John

Off the top of my head:

The Man Who Would Be King
Untouchables
Darby O'Gill and the Little People

Do I win an Amendment?

Dr No. he sings a quick Calypso ditty to Ursula.

the Untouchables? Really?
Huh.

An Amendment? Sure. What do you want?

"we can become an oligarchy while retaining the outward forms of a republic" We have alwys been this. "Unfortunately our elites, our ruling class, are demonstrably corrupt and also inept." so has this.

I guessed the Untouchables! Never seen Dr No.

Does this mean 2/3 of an Amendment? How about free shipping for Fife & Drum figures to the UK?

Is that too much wargaming for this thread?

dapeters, I cannot agree. The Virginia planters were an aristocracy, which is always in danger of sliding into oligarchy, but the Revolutionary generations took their responsibilities very seriously and were very able. Our current "elite" has degenerated far below what the nation has seen in previous centuries. They are infected by ideology that is far worse than common greed and ambition and arrogance.

Is it just me or has this thread got on the Crazy Train?

I thought it was about a ship and somebody derailed it with a load of political guff.

It is either being petty or being dense.

No-just being accurate. Apparently, you are not which is becoming quite common.

Many things that people find "wrong" with the process is not due to the constitution itself, but the rules that the House and Senate themselves have adopted to do business. The Filibuster, for example, is not in the Constitution. It's a Senate rule.

Political parties are not in the Constitution either, let alone any limitation to only 2 parties -- but do the news media seem to know that?

Correct, and the Founders did not want parties, considering them factions. However, the EC makes a two party system necessary and inevitable.

Kevin, you are the one who confused Pilgrims and Puritans. And objected that three branches cannot be considered as four parts of the government, when the House and Senate have different powers and are chosen by different people. What's your problem?

You are an expert in some important areas about which I have only cursory knowledge. I own and still enjoy a couple of your books. If I argued with you about artillery I'd expect to get refuted.

But as far as I know you do NOT have a professional-level knowledge of US History or government. Most of what you know on these topics is correct, but it is not complete. Not that I am incapable of error, either; but (to take the history of slavery as an example) I have read dozens of books on the subject, often with conflicting interpretations, and also at least hundreds if not thousands of primary documents, like the WPA interviews with former slaves. Read them and USED them.

Someone knowing something that I do not, or understanding a complex issue differently than I do, should not be cause for resentment.

???

I don't see Doc speaking out against democracy— though you should know that the United States is actually NOT one. He's simply calling for a return to the original structure of selecting Senators— a debatable point, but a circumstance that still fit the underlying construction of the nation. But as I said, the US is NOT a democracy— it is a representative republic where democracy is used as the selection process for those who act as the representatives (lower case R)— although interestingly, the Constitution does not ever state that popular democratic election is the process for selecting either Representatives, Senators or the President! The Federal government is required and empowered to ensure that each state has a republican form of government, though again, democracy is not mentioned at all.

In fact, the Framers were very careful not to use the word "democracy"— because they feared and despised democracy as they understood it to mean (which sadly isn't taught very well today)— the direct vote of all citizens on all matters of legislation or other concerns. They knew the dangers of the whim of the mob, and they wanted nothing whatsoever to do with it. Instead, they wanted a republic— where (hopefully) sober-minded representatives elected by the people made the decisions on matters of legislation, etc.. The people had the "root" say, but were removed from the immediacy which is the danger of democracy, and tempered by the nature of the Representatives and Senators and the President and the methods by which each were given power by the people.
The Representatives were given power by the popular vote only within their district, thus giving them a direct connection to the voters, but not actually representing the actual broad mob of ALL voters. Thus local concerns could have precedent over broadly popular concerns.
The Senators were elected by the legislatures, but with Article VI section 4 the states must be republics, which means the legislatures are elected by the people— thus, the Senators may have been once removed, yet the root power for selecting them remained with the people— but again, apportioned not solely due to direct popular vote, but again by the regional and local concerns within each state.
Lastly, the President, being elected by an Electoral College itself proportioned by districts (and the two Senators of each state), also was protected from the whims of the mob by recognizing the importance of local, regional, state and national concerns over mere population— for the latter would mean that the President would be elected solely by urban power centers (even in their day), and the rural concerns would struggle to be heard.

There is no magic, golden sanctity in democracy— which the Framers knew. But a republic can carry what democracy claims to carry (but does not)— the actual will of the people at their best.

Parzival, yes. +50 or +100 or something. (Can we stop with the silly +1s?)

It is hardly surprising that the US today operates in very different fashion than 200 years ago. What is remarkable is that a Constitution written for a largely agricultural and commercial republic still mostly works for a vastly larger nation with big cities and industry and mass communication and all the other changes.

I am a student of the American party system, which has had a complex history, appearing in spite of the Founders' intent. My expectation is that the present two parties will continue indefinitely, as organizational shells, but will (again) be changed internally in fundamental ways.

UNLESS the system breaks down (again) as it did in the 1850s. That breakdown was one of the fundamental causes of the Civil War.

Parzival, nicely put.

If the US constitution came up for ratification today, it would never make it. Texas has been trying to re-write their archaic constitution for decades. As for the direct election of Senators, 17th amendment, I have no problem with that. But I believe the number of Senate seats should be by population, like Representatives are. It is ridiculous that California has the same number of Senators as North Dakota.

Seriously, lets take these types of conversations somewhere else. This used to be a nice friendly board. We never got into politics. Except some people and you know who you are, keeps lobbing hand grenades on to the board. It generates a lot hits for TMP but it corrupts the friendly discourse and it is totally unrelated to historical miniature gaming and yes I could ignore it but that's not the point. It shouldn't be here. It is just plain old fashion trolling. I will probably end up in the DH for that and the ones instigating this will go on.

The writing of the Constitution was years AFTER the Revolutionary War. Constitutional law discussions need to be carried on somewhere else.

It is ridiculous that California has the same number of Senators as North Dakota.

Yes of course it is. As is the fact that each State can make its own voting rules for National Elections and Gerrymandering is still an acceptable part of the electoral process.

Don't see any of those changing in a hurry!

Old Contemptible, these things get cross posted, so its not just this board. They begin as historical discussions. But they usually become politicized. I am guilty, though I try to keep my replies at the conversational level.

I have tried not replying, but sometimes that feels wrong also. As if there is a responsibility to seek some balance in these partisan times. But I am starting to think that it is not gonna make much difference.

Not ridiculous a bit, unless you think we are and should be a democracy rather than a federal republic.

This thread has absolutely nothing to do with the hobby of playing with toy soldiers.

The writing of the Constitution was years AFTER the Revolutionary War.

It was after the war, 4 years, but it was designed to repair/replace the Articles of Confederation which were approved during the war.

And if you take the wider view, the American Revolution began in 1763 and lasted until 1789 with the ratification of the US Constitution. The war itself is a subset of the Revolution and the Revolution could not have succeeded without it.

Kevin, yes, and one might even argue that the Revolution was not concluded until the first peaceful transfer of power under the Constitution, which would be 1800-1801.

By the way, a republic, by definition, is supposed to be a form of government where the representatives are popularly elected— that is "democratically" elected. So to advocate for a republic is not to advocate against "democratic" elections.

A democracy, by definition, is a form of government where all laws and government actions are directly voted upon by the people.

A democracy is 3 wolves and 2 sheep deciding on what's for dinner.

The reason each state has only two Senators, regardless of population, is to prevent the very excess above— the popular vote can be a really bad idea for the minority within a population. And, as I noted previously, when population centers are heavily urban with urban concerns, their voices can drown out and tyrannically overpower the voices of the rural people and rural concerns. In short, the urban people could become wolves demanding that the rural people be the sheep who provide their dinner.
For the record, that's called "slavery," and a democracy can damn well vote it into place as readily as any other form of government— (kind of a "duh" moment if one does any examination of history at all).

The reason the US has both a Senate and a House, and the Electoral College process, is to prevent the excesses of popular democracy from drowning out and violating the rights of the minority and regional concerns.
For example, without the EC, the US President would solely be determined by the cities of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Miami. The entire remainder of the country would be effectively "what's for dinner." The President thus would only need satisfy the concerns of these urban areas, and could ignore 46 states entirely. (We're already dangerously close to that as it is).

It is not a simple thing to form an equitable system of government— and unfettered democracy can be as much an instigator of great evil as the lone tyrant. Be careful what you wish for, less you find out you're holding a monkey's paw.*
.
.
.
.
*(For the confused: link )

Parzival,

I hear what you are saying and yes minorities can suffer. They suffer in most systems and often correction of one minorities problem cuts across the interests of another.

However, at the present time, we have a situation where the two party system means that the number of members representing one of the parties present in the Senate, from those States with small populations, means that their interests, or at least there political choice, has an incredible amount of influence over millions of their fellow Americans.

As such the National Election process is a joke. Millions can express there choice for a set of policies by voting for a candidate, only to see them evaporate because of the action of a block of Senators who disagree on behalf of a minority.

You say

The President thus would only need satisfy the concerns of these urban areas, and could ignore 46 states entirely. (We're already dangerously close to that as it is).

I would suggest this is far from the case and many of those 46 States have a level of influence quite the reverse to what you imagine.

Being Canadian and living in a parliamentary system the underlying difference between our system and the US system is the we believe that bad government is better than no government and you believe that no government is better than bad government. The US system was designed to obstruct laws that did not have supermajority support. That is why power is widely is distributed through the US system.

The Founders -- the whole generation, pretty much -- believed that power corrupts. Liberty is a beautiful flower, and power is weeds that always threaten to choke and kill it.

Power once given can rarely be taken back, save at gunpoint. "Any government strong enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."

This is mega-relevant today, in both directions: if you give YOUR president power to rule by executive orders, the NEXT president, whom you may fear and despise, will have that EXACT SAME POWER.

It seems that each new President of an opposite party spends his first 6 weeks in office rescinding the Executive Orders of the previous president…. with Executive Orders. The next six weeks constitute the Lawsuit Phase of the game.

Yes. Lawsuit phase, yes, lol.

It seems that each new President of an opposite party spends his first 6 weeks in office rescinding the Executive Orders of the previous president…. with Executive Orders. The next six weeks constitute the Lawsuit Phase of the game.

That is a sign of polarization and legislative paralysis. Presidents have been forced to govern by decree instead of legislation.

Doc. You can trace a struggle between elites from the magna carta, English Civil war, American Revolution and American Civil war. In fact, the culture war that has been going for the past 60 years is has only been about the wealthy elite trying to hang on to their privilege and entitlements.
Marcus Brutus the US was not always this way, this is the product of those same elites, very craftly manipulating the American public against what they identify as "elites" at the same time making tons of money directly and indirectly from the federal and State government.

That is a sign of polarization and legislative paralysis. Presidents have been forced to govern by decree instead of legislation.

That my dear Brutus is the whole thing in a nutshell.

As is dapeters comment:

the US was not always this way, this is the product of those same elites, very craftly manipulating the American public against what they identify as "elites" at the same time making tons of money directly and indirectly from the federal and State government.