Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

Who knew?

[Who even knows what the 17th Amendment says without looking it up? It's the one about the popular election of senators rather than appointment by state legislatures.]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/gohmert-fight-health-care-bill-by-repealing-popular-election-of-senators-video.php?ref=fpblg

Does anyone else feel we've stumbled into a rabbit hole that leads directly to the past?

The 17th Amendment was adopted in 1913 during the Progressive Era because a 2/3's majority felt the Senate was too conservative and too resistant to the popular will. Here is Rep. Gohmert calling for repeal as a way to block health care reform, based on States Rights (Yikes! Now we're back to the 1850's.) Of course Obama ran with a health care reform plank in '08, won a clear cut victory and has now delivered on the promise. Gohmert wants to overturn the '08 election.

I doubt he can get any traction on this idea, but it is a fascinating peek into the thinking on the Right. One of their mantras is that the US is a republic, not a democracy. Structurally it's true, but what it really means is that a significant segment of the public believes that an elite is better able to govern than the public as a whole. My questions for small 'r' republicans are: Who is the elite? What makes them more qualified to govern? With their historic defense of Big Business & tax cuts for the rich, I've always had a sneaking suspicion that the true meaning of republicanism was rule by the wealthy--plutocracy. (Don't forget there were property qualifications and/or religious qualifications in 1788 when the Constitution was adopted.)

One advantage of state legislature election of Senators is that you only have to bribe a finite number of state legislators. I suppose that is one form of fiscal conservatism.

[The Happy Warrior]

Some progressives have this weird conceit that there's continual progress in the political realm. At its most reductionist, this philosophy says: There's been a change, so it must be for the better. But political development is not like technology in this regard. Although a computer is superior to a typewriter in almost every way, the 18th Amendment is not superior to the 14th Amendment in almost any way.

Its true that there are Leftists who are not progressives, and who see technological development as a hostile force and society's path through time as a negative progression. But these Rousseau Leftists are like Progressives insofar as they have the same attitude towards technological development as they do political development.

I find the whole progressive (or regressive) conceit rather bizarre and certainly unfounded, myself. I do believe that we live in a better time today than in the past. But technology's relationship to human happiness is rather tenuous. And the political situation probably has an even greater influence on human happiness, but this relies at least as much on the judgment of particular human beings, just as man's employment of technology determines whether it does actually benefit our lives. There are certain truths that we have discovered about human nature, and some of these are embedded in the United States Constitution. But having discovered that truth does not mean that everyone will respect it. Furthermore, although human nature remains constant, circumstances do not, and the application of those truths is thus not clean in any mathematical sense (although the law tries its hardest to appear mathematical and scientific). Thus, the effect of an Amendment of the Constitution might be overall beneficial in one period, and less so in the next, especially as the Constitution's interpretation changes. That means that policies and beliefs that have some place in the past, but were defeated, cannot by that very fact scientifically refuted by any means. Ultimately, this notion of continual progress is a happy story, but it might interfere with our happiness if we uncritically accepted its fullest implications.

[AsiaESLbound]

1913 is famous for the start of taxes, IRS, and the Federal Reserve. It's the beginning of the runaway autocratic plutocracy commonly known as the USA or America. It's repulsive and opressive; abolish the FED and restructure government to better reflect the constitution minus #17, ideals of the original country system model, and a more accurate representation of the people.

[Fox]

[Fox]

Speaking of Mr. Gohmert, it seems he's on a crazy streak this week.

[visitorq]

[lithium]