Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They would not be able to achieve such before the 17th as they ran the risk of being immediately recalled by the state legislature.
I'd be glad of specific historical examples of state governments recalling their senators prior to the 17th; a simple Google search turns up some discussion, mostly on states' rights websites, but no actual historical examples.
Edit: still looking, still not finding. Much assertion, but no factual examples. The relevant clause of Art. 1 (the pre-17th regime) simply says "chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years" - nothing there about recall or abbreviating that six-year term.
The power may originate with the people, but it always has a tendency to flow upward. From communities, to cities, to counties, to States, all the way up to the federal government. The more power concentrated at the top, the less power States, counties, cities, communities, and ultimately the people have.
There has been a 224 year tug of war to determine where the proper balance of power should reside. Those that argue that power must reside at the top are branded tyrants and fascists. Those that argue that power must reside at the bottom, with the people, are labeled anarchists and libertarians.
I do not pretend to know where that balance of power should reside, or the form of government that would best preserve the founding principles of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Until someone proposes a better form of government than we have today, I am content with sticking with the government that is in place today. As flawed as it may be, the alternatives may be even worse.
Power exists primarily with the people. It is the individuals that fight the wars, bleed and die for a given belief. They are where power should lie. Our system was designed to facilitate an organization of that, not growing the power to the top, but establishing a culmination of power through many branches. Each branch from the local communities, up to the state governments were the direct permission of those who allowed it only the power required to carry out its wishes according to those who allowed it.
The federal government was never part of the equation. It was kept separate and placed under extreme restrictive powers only to serve a very limited and specific need. The states were to hold the power and the federal government only allowed such power under very clear and specific circumstances.
There is no linear growth of power here, the founders despised such as it was nothing short of an establishment of tyranny. If I may be so bold to claim, if the founders were alive today, we would be at war for the power the federal government holds and the dictations it has served to the states and people there in are no different than that of the monarchy to which we fought against.
It may be comfortable for you to exist in the system right now, and that is the method to which they slowly gain their power. For what you describe as being agreeable with is the very thing that our founders described as being lethargic and inattentive to the tyrannical nature of government.
For you, you are comfortable, but as time goes on, that power is concentrated and those that follow after us will carry the burden of the comfort we seek today.
There is only one singular purpose of our system and that is to protect individual liberty. When we stop attending to such as our primary goal, nothing that we say or do matters in the eyes of the system that was founded. We become traitors, every single one of us.
I'd be glad of specific historical examples of state governments recalling their senators prior to the 17th; a simple Google search turns up some discussion, mostly on states' rights websites, but no actual historical examples.
Edit: still looking, still not finding. Much assertion, but no factual examples. The relevant clause of Art. 1 (the pre-17th regime) simply says "chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years" - nothing there about recall or abbreviating that six-year term.
Certainly, look up Senator Pelog Sprague, Maine. Resigned 1835 for voting against the state legislatures instruction to vote against the BUS. Also look up Bank of the United States (BUS) and the Independent Treasury System known as the "era of free banking" as well as Andrew Jackson's part in such.
Certainly, look up Senator Pelog Sprague, Maine. Resigned 1835 for voting against the state legislatures instruction to vote against the BUS.
Looks like he voluntarily resigned, though perhaps under some pressure. But regardless of the motive or political undercurrents, voluntary resignation isn't recall by the state.
Quote:
Also look up Bank of the United States (BUS) and the Independent Treasury System known as the "era of free banking" as well as Andrew Jackson's part in such.
Looks like he voluntarily resigned, though perhaps under some pressure. But regardless of the motive or political undercurrents, voluntary resignation isn't recall by the state.
Going to read up now....
Bingo! Squarian, that is the point. You see, he resigned... why? Why did Nixon resign? Why do most people resign in such cases? It is because, they can "resign" on their terms or they can be thrown out.
That was the beauty of the process. Regardless of your political position, wouldn't be nice if your state legislatures through pressure from their constituents (ie we are going to make sure you are never elected again) that the state have the power to punish senators who go rogue? Would that not force the senators to hold to the states and not to some deal they did with lobbyist and the federal government?
This is what we lost in the 17th. Were there problems? Yes, Glitch pointing out some of the problems with the corruption, but that could have been attended to in better ways that still retained power with the states. All we did with the 17th is remove their power and by removal of the states power, increased the power of the federal government.
Bingo! Squarian, that is the point. You see, he resigned... why? Why did Nixon resign? Why do most people resign in such cases? It is because, they can "resign" on their terms or they can be thrown out.
That was the beauty of the process. Regardless of your political position, wouldn't be nice if your state legislatures through pressure from their constituents (ie we are going to make sure you are never elected again) that the state have the power to punish senators who go rogue? Would that not force the senators to hold to the states and not to some deal they did with lobbyist and the federal government?
This is what we lost in the 17th. Were there problems? Yes, Glitch pointing out some of the problems with the corruption, but that could have been attended to in better ways that still retained power with the states. All we did with the 17th is remove their power and by removal of the states power, increased the power of the federal government.
I understand, but my question is whether state legislatures had the power to recall (i.e. legitimately deprive of office) their senators prior to the expiration of their six-year term, assuming the senator had been legitimately elected by the state legislature and duly recognized by the Senate.
This seems to be asserted in a great many websites of a states-rights or tea-party character, but I'm not finding any actual instances of legislatures voting to invalidate their own election or recall their U.S. senators.
A senator could be pressured into resignation now (Bob Packwood?), but that's ultimately the senator's own choice. Alternately (as in the Packwood case), a senator might face expulsion from the Senate - but again, that's the Senate's own power, not the state's. So if it's just a matter of pressuring a resignation, I don't see how anything changed with the 17th in this respect.
Also look up Bank of the United States (BUS) and the Independent Treasury System known as the "era of free banking" as well as Andrew Jackson's part in such.
OK, I've read various articles (Wikipedia, but they seem well-cited and reasonably informed) on Jackson and the "Bank War" - this one in particular - and I'm not finding anything relevant.
I understand, but my question is whether state legislatures had the power to recall (i.e. legitimately deprive of office) their senators prior to the expiration of their six-year term, assuming the senator had been legitimately elected by the state legislature and duly recognized by the Senate.
This seems to be asserted in a great many websites of a states-rights or tea-party character, but I'm not finding any actual instances of legislatures voting to invalidate their own election or recall their U.S. senators.
A senator could be pressured into resignation now (Bob Packwood?), but that's ultimately the senator's own choice. Alternately (as in the Packwood case), a senator might face expulsion from the Senate - but again, that's the Senate's own power, not the state's. So if it's just a matter of pressuring a resignation, I don't see how anything changed with the 17th in this respect.
Look to the 10th. If the Federal government is not specifically empowered as such, then who has the power? The states then have the power to elect and remove a senator. (aside from the 17th that now dictates such).
OK, I've read various articles (Wikipedia, but they seem well-cited and reasonably informed) on Jackson and the "Bank War" - this one in particular - and I'm not finding anything relevant.
Is there a specific instance you have in mind?
The instance was just relevant to the removal of the senator (ie his choice to resign). See if you can find what that senator voted for and how it related to the state he represented as well as the states position concerning such (ie the legislatures urgency on the issue).
Might have to check the Library of Congress for records as to the issue.
The point is, without such ability by the states, senators would vote based on pressure from other sources than their legislature (ultimately the people).
As we see it now, because of the time it takes to reelect and the method of popular election, most senators vote as they "choose" rather than for the respect of their state. How many times have you seen a senator vote for something regardless of a political faction to that of particular motive.
You can see it clearly in the health care bill that was passed by rogue senators who pushed it through even though it was in the face of the states they represented.
Oh, as for cites... well.. wiki is ok for a start, but did you check their sources? Depending on the political nature of a given topic, their sources are horrible. Track them down to the originating source first.
This is the fault of the voters, not of the system. When they will not work together, vote them out. Don't look to solutions that are never going to happen for your failure to do what you should be doing.
Exactly...
#1 People voted back in to office an inept President, House and Senate. Then are shocked when government remains inept.
#2 People want unsustainable services, because they don't want to pay for them and they don't want cuts to the services.
#3 People excuse the sins of the politicians within their own party...when it is the supporters of the party that can best hold their politicians feet to the fire and make them do the right thing.
#4 Politicians can't compromise for a real solution, because their constituents won't let them, unless they risk getting voted out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
