Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by ReformedBaptist, Feb 27, 2009.
How do you respond to the idea stated in the title of this thread?
The federal government should be the servant of the states. Unfortunately that is not where we are today.
Power Corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutly
The title states what should be and how this country was founded.... but not as it is today. Would/Could it still work if returned to the former condition of roles between Federal and State before the civil war and reconstruction? Absolutely. But we've had different ammendments added on the constitution which changed the balance of power and the movement away from a republic to more nearly a democracy: The chief error, in my thinking, was allowing the citizens to elect their senators for each state.
Originally, our representation was in the House and reflective of that, the term of service was shorter to give our representatives the potential of a faster voter turn around if they did not represent the wishes of the people who elected them. But originally the Senators had longer terms but were appointed or selected by the legislative houses within their State: This kept them from ammassing an independant and national appeal for power brokered on the special interest of the masses or influence of well positioned allies. When the states legislators chose the Senators to represent the States in DC, they then had more direct input and influence on the garbage or support kicked back to the state from the federal government.
Our state legislatures, being more responsive to the people within the state, then had the power to promote, or rein in its Senators which it felt was according to the best interest of the people within the State. That made the Senators more immune from outside interest like grandstanding and publicity or lobbyists and gifts and alliances of brotherhood within the body of the Senate which went against the interest and welfare of the state.
With todays' publicity and economic interest, for example, each state would have something to say if their Senator was either in agreement or a participant in an expensive foreign trips with their wives and aides deriving funds from Federal revenues which are supported by tax dollars from the people of each state. The bailouts approved first by the Senate and then sent to Congress would have likely been scrapped or better thought out. For approval, the Senator would have to answer back to the States own government for the purpose of his expenses and the involvement of his time: The opinions of lobbyist or fellow Senators or allegiance to anyone in the administration in Washington, would be of less consequence as his guidance and approval and continuance in position depended upon how he represented the interest of his own state in concert with the interest of other states.