This came in from Jerry Kurtyka:
El Paso, TX
This came in from Jerry Kurtyka:
El Paso, TX
Our current problems with elected officials representing their own interests instead of ours are not new and the solution was the same back then as it is now.
William Willoughby wrote this in 1919:
The Problem of Representative Government
This type of government, from its very nature, raised a political problem of prime importance. How are the people to make sure that their representative, the legislature, will in fact, represent them in the sense that its action will accord with their wishes? This is a problem which, in spite of our hundred or more years of experience with the system, has not yet been solved. It is only too well known that in many cases legislatures have failed utterly to translate into action the wishes of the people represented by them. In many cases they can be said to represent the people only in name, since the election of their members has been controlled or dictated by a small part of the voters to whom we have given the opprobrious names of the “ring”, the “machine”, the “bosses”, etc. Often members of legislatures have used their powers to promote personal or party interests rather than those of the people as a whole.
The solution back then as it is now was to vote these people out of office.
We deserve better
Brutus
What role (if any) should the states play in our lives with circumstances being what they are now in 2016?
Do we still need states?
Brutus
Our Texas governor has called for a convention of states to suggest amendments to our national constitution.
Article V of our U.S. constitution provides two methods to propose changes to the constitution.
The only one that has been used in our history is the one where 2/3 of the members of both the house of representatives and the senate vote to send a proposed amendment to the states for approval or rejection. Once sent to the states approval takes an affirmative vote by 3/4 of the states.
A second method in the constitution has never been used. It provides that 2/3 of the legislatures of the states voting together can call for a national constitutional convention, the purpose of which would be to propose constitutional amendments. Once proposed approval of an amendment would again take an affirmative vote by 3/4 of the states.
Here congress retains significant power. Without regard to which method (direct submission by congress or a constitutional convention) is used, congress must choose to put the issue either to the individual state legislatures or to state conventions of the people. In the case of a state convention it is up to each state to chooses how the representatives to the convention are chosen.
We have a constitution that is over 200 years old that contains provisions that did not contemplate our current condition. We also have seen various factions work to claim the ability to override the constitution without having to make their desired changes within Article V.
Some claim that calling a constitutional convention would open the door to mayhem but they are not giving due credit to the requirement that any proposals that come out of a convention must be approved by 3/4 of the states.
“We the people of the United States” are the words that begin our constitution.
What would be wrong with letting the people decide what needs to be done here?
We deserve better
Brutus
Our post Paying for our schools–competition saw some diverse comments the other day.
One point that was raised was that our local school boards are self governing.
I may be under a mistaken impression in that I believe that the curriculum and testing regimens are dictated by the state and that locally we have no choice but to do what they say.
I hope that one of our readers can fill us in on this issue.
If it turns out that we have little control locally when it comes to curriculum then I ask the question again. Wouldn’t we be better off if we determined what and how to teach on a local level? Would that not create a situation where homeowners decided which school district to live in (and pay taxes in) based upon their individual perception of the quality and value of the education being offered?
Another comment suggested that with local control we might have to give up the state and feral funding that we now receive. The state and national governments get their money from us. If they stopped taking it from us we would not have to depend upon them to “give” us own money back through funding.
Let’s keep up the discussion.
We deserve better
Brutus
You must be logged in to post a comment.