Is the United States ready for a President who speaks to the populace like adults?

[C1ay]

I'm not sure, Senators were intended to represent their State in total. It would seem to me 'one' would would have been better and then making the 17th adm. a problem. Even with two, with equal power to any State, not always are they from the same party, the States Legislatures affiliation, the Governors party or in fact members of any majority party. Wouldn't this tend toward the founders wishes to thwart dominance of any party.

 

From Federalist No. 39:

 

The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is NATIONAL, not FEDERAL. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is FEDERAL, not NATIONAL. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source.

 

Federalist Nos. 62 & 63 outline the intended function and powers delegated to the Senate. Other pieces of the Federalist Papers make the case for the form of government chosen and how it was intended to operate.

 

Yes, the legislatures of the States are elected by the people of the States but they are not representatives of the people at the federal level. It was the intended function for the State legislatures to appoint Senators at the federal level to guard the States interests at the federal level, not the peoples interests since the people have their own representatives at the federal level. Their are times when the States interests and the people's interests are at odds and the appointment of the States representatives as opposed to the election of those representatives insulates their responsibility. It is this same effect of insulation that is the reason judges are appointed instead of elected, lest judicial objectivity be tainted by judges having to judge the very constituents that elected them.

[HydrogenBond]

The larger the size of the government, the more the population is treated like children. We have dependent children, spoiled children lobbying for extra dessert, we have big mother interfering in the children's lives, big brother watching, Dad is working and maybe feuding with the neighbors. We control the children's behavior, we childproof the country, we put children in time out, take away their toys, play favorite son, etc. Political correctness is table manners. Global warming and terrorism are the boogie man. We try to shelter the children from deep concerns. The parents talk about the deep stuff between themselves.

 

Because the population is treated like children, politicians become uncle and auntie when they are on the campaign trail. They are nice people. They like to make you feel good, give you some wise direction, are sympathetic to your concerns, until they are elected parents. The Republicans are dad and the Democrats are mom.

 

Getting back to a president, who speaks to the populous as adults, to be consistent, he would need to also treat them like adults. Parents may set controls for their children. But when the children become adults they can ignore many of controls. Mom may still nag at you about your table manners. But as an adult in your own home, one can eat with their feet if they want. Dad may want you on a curfew, but an adult can stay up all night. Even if one of the parents treats you as an adult, there is still the other parent. He or she can make their spouse miserable, if they fear loss of control or an empty nest. I don't think mom and dad are both ready to let go. One might expect only enough teaching not to overload the children. Or if you are nice, they might play games or be entertaining.

[Boerseun]

Things will already start improving if we don't sue and litigate just for the hell of it. We should grow out of the "child" phase, and take 100% responsibility for our actions. If we don't do that, we can't blame the government for treating us like kids. For instance, if you buy a cup of coffee and spill it over yourself, don't sue Starbucks for not putting a label on the mug that says "Boiling hot content inside - do not spill".

 

If you do sue them, you're an idiot who shouldn't be allowed within ten miles of a coffee machine. No amount of warning labels will help you. Grow up! Learn the basics about coffee!

 

TRUE STORY:

In SA, we had a case awhile ago about a guy who broke into a house and hurt himself. Because of the high crime rates in my country, every house has burglar bars and alarm systems. But few people secure their roofs. So this rocket scientist decided to break in to the house by lifting roof tiles, and go through the ceiling. So he lifted the tiles, climbed into the unsecured ceiling, and stepped on to the ceiling board thats nailed to the roof trusses. And, of course, the board wasn't built to support a grown man's weight, and he fell right through it, breaking his ankle.

He did go to jail for housebreaking, but he sued for the dangerous ceiling, and was awarded a few hundred thousand. The principle is that the dangerous ceiling wasn't properly marked.

 

Now THAT, in my honest-to-God opinion, is just nuts. And any society that allows this kind of bullshit, will get what's coming to them.

[jackson33]

Clay; Anything we discuss, regarding the founders thoughts, must be from the perspective they lived in and the problems of that day or imagined as a future problem. The 'Federalist Papers' were written to 'sell' the newly formed Constitution (for ratification), to a limited number of citizens, those white males who owned property who the right to vote, was limited to. The 17th amendment (ratified 1913) would IMO have been suggested by 'Madison' himself, or a majority of the founders, with the the knowledge of the time, 1912. Even our Constitution, was very different in many respects to the Colonial Confederation Articles. The process to amending, pertaining to this discussion, where all 13 Colonies must ratify for any change (law), to 3/4ths of the States. To me this shows the desire to allow change, though still under a very difficult process. A-17 was ratified in 330 days.

 

As for the purpose and/or duties of House/Senate, they remain the same today as indented...

 

To the thread and mentioned by a couple including myself, the eligibility to vote and by whom have changed considerably over the years. None of this was intended or expected by those founders, who had grave concerns about the general public voting on National OR INTERNATIONAL matters. Although they wanted public input, there is no indication they wanted control of government to come from that general public or in fact from any source with out personal or economic interest in any outcome. That changed, where your arguments should be addressed. We are not going back to those original ideas

and several amendments have been ratified to protect those current rights.

 

Supreme Court Judges were given life tenure, to add clout, which the founders felt added power to the weakest of the three branches. The founders, a I understand their intent, expected Presidents to nominate according to experience and National Loyalty, yet allowing Congress to over ride any appointment based on the same. It has worked, though 100% agreement from any changing society will never happen. The founders knew full well, that no society/government, could last beyond thats society's desire to live with in the laws of that society.

[C1ay]

The 17th amendment (ratified 1913) would IMO have been suggested by 'Madison' himself, or a majority of the founders, with the the knowledge of the time, 1912.

 

Would you also claim that Madison would have supported the popular election of judges with the knowledge of today? IMO, Madison and many other would have vehemently opposed the 17th Amendment. It is evident from their discussion that they understood that the States needed their own representation in Congress or they would not have even formed a Senate. How can a Senator faithfully represent State interests that are in conflict with the people's interests when that very Senator has to campaign to the people and make promises to protect the people's interests to even get elected in the first place? This abridges the very objectivity that is required when the States interests are at odds with its people.

[jackson33]

Of course not, on popular vote for Federal Judges, at any level. Some States have taken this action with different results, but then State Appointed Judgeships, find there decisions reviewed and/or overturned, no less often.

The ninth circuit court, all appointed (per Constitution), have a dismal record. I do NOT THINK the founders intended all judges should come from the legal system or that precedent be mandatory for decisions. The process for the Constitution itself had very little precedent and all participants were not lawyers and no such requirements were made. Even in agreeing with the system, IMO to many unqualified judges slip through the cracks, as the President and then the Congress really don't have the time or patience to personally go through all the applicants, especially during the first few months of any administration. Then you have the political rhetoric in todays world, where the process itself is pure politics.

 

For those that don't know- All US Courts of Appeal, District Courts and Supreme Court Judges are appointed by the President and must be approved by the Senate. The process is arguably the largest single payback a for party political favors in our system, along with Ambassadorships.

 

I think your missing the point of 'Checks & Balance' to our system, which can be used to correct or change perceived unwarranted law/actions, whether popular or not by the public. It may involve an amendment, if say he SC makes a ruling, but it can be over ruled. Hundreds, if not thousands of amendments have been offered for just such reason with very few even getting through Congress, much less the 6-8 that did but were never ratified.

The Executive and Legislative have often been over ruled by the SC....

 

State Legislatures are influenced more by local influence and are just as beholding to the electorate than any federal position holder. Add a little State Rights for electing officials and I see those founders signing on the the 17th A...This was all hashed out in the early 20th century and population changes (a couple to near 100 million) and what I offered above the winning side.

[C1ay]

I think your missing the point of 'Checks & Balance' to our system, which can be used to correct or change perceived unwarranted law/actions, whether popular or not by the public. It may involve an amendment, if say he SC makes a ruling, but it can be over ruled. Hundreds, if not thousands of amendments have been offered for just such reason with very few even getting through Congress, much less the 6-8 that did but were never ratified.

The Executive and Legislative have often been over ruled by the SC....

 

State Legislatures are influenced more by local influence and are just as beholding to the electorate than any federal position holder. Add a little State Rights for electing officials and I see those founders signing on the the 17th A...This was all hashed out in the early 20th century and population changes (a couple to near 100 million) and what I offered above the winning side.

 

Making Senators elected representatives of the people effectively broke one of those very 'Check & Balances' of the system. The very reason there are two houses of Congress is because their are two separate parties, the people and the States, that have some common and some opposing interests. Legislative power is intended to be balanced between them and the 17th Amendment tilted that balance.

 

Think back to playing ball as a kid. You'd split up into two teams by taking turns picking the members of your teams because it was fair to both sides. Now imagine changing the rules to let one side choose all the players for both teams. Which ever side is doing the picking has an unfair advantage. In the case of the Congress the people now get to directly pick their own representatives and the representatives for the other team, the State.

 

Consider this is the context of the States rights on Constitutional Amendments granted by Article 5, "...that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." How can the State get equal suffrage when the people get to pick the voters for both sides of Congress? Can you see how State's rights were eroded in favor of people's rights by the 17th Amendment?

[REASON]

Consider this is the context of the States rights on Constitutional Amendments granted by Article 5, "...that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." How can the State get equal suffrage when the people get to pick the voters for both sides of Congress? Can you see how State's rights were eroded in favor of people's rights by the 17th Amendment?

 

I think you are making a very good argument C1ay, but I'm confused about something.

 

When you refer to "the State" you are referring to the State Government, which is made up of officials elected to office by the residents of that state. In what type of situation would the interests of "the State" differ from those of it's own constituents? Can you give an example?

 

How can a State Senator represent the interests of his State without representing the interests of his electorate, even if by proxy through a State Legislature appointment?

[C1ay]

When you refer to "the State" you are referring to the State Government...

 

No, not the State government, the collective population of the State, the entity that is effectively a corporation of the people of the State.

 

People's rights are those rights they enjoy as individuals like those enumerated in the Bill Of Rights. Nearly all cases of law that come before the court about an individuals rights are people's rights versus State's rights cases. One of the more recent cases I followed was Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. Hiibel refused to identify himself to an officer on the grounds that he had not committed any crimes and the officer had no business asking for his identification. He was cited for violating Nevada's Stop and Identify Law. He further argued that it violated the 5th Amendment prohibition on self incrimination, an individual's right. The State argued that it needs the right to require identification on demand in order to provide effective law enforcement for the population of the people, the State. That it needed to reasonably abridge a right of the people as individuals in favor of the people as a population in order to effectively protect that population. The State won.

 

Privacy cases are all about the people's rights as individuals versus the people's rights as a collective population. Search and seizure laws must walk a fine line between protecting an individuals rights of privacy and the States rights in protecting the individuals collectively as a population. If the State receives a tip that someone in your neighborhood is manufacturing explosives in the house next door then the State needs the right to violate that individual's right of privacy in order to provide for your right to effective law enforcement as a member of the population at large.

 

Senators have fiduciary responsibility to the population of people as a whole. To argue and vote in favor of that population for laws and gifts from the treasury that favor the population instead of the individuals of that population. To argue in favor of funds for roads, municipal services, hospitals, etc. versus funds for individuals like welfare or food stamps. They must not be individuals selected by the people because they would vote against things like roads and hospitals in favor of welfare and food stamps. That's why the State needs to be able to appoint such individuals on its own behalf instead of letting the people directly choose whom the State's representatives will be lest the State be denied its equal suffrage in the Senate.

 

As it is now, those that wish to be Senators lobby the people instead of the State and they do so by making promises of gifts for those people that would elect them. IMO, this is a crack in the foundation laid for our Republic. It tilts our form of government, a Constitutional Republic, towards becoming a true democracy.

[jackson33]

Suffrage of States, has to do with 'equal rights' in the Senate, where each State has equal representation in that chamber, regardless of population or political/economics influence of the others. Just as the President is elected through the electoral system and represents the total US population, a Senator represents his electorate.

 

The Legislative Branch (Congress) is a single entity in the C&B System, as is the primary duty, legislation of law. Most begins in the House (Can start in Senate) but with out agreement of BOTH Chambers it can not move on to the President. There are independent duties, under the constitution, but not the sole purpose of Congress, but even here they can overlap.

 

State Legislators, IMO picking Senators would be a larger problem today, than it was in earlier times. Effectually, many States through the majority party already redraw district lines in States to influence and control Federal Election of House Members. The 2008 cycle, already destined to be lopsided would be even more so, under the old system.

 

Your concern for a lost 'Representative Republic' to a democracy is noted and a valid point, but I don't think Public Election of State Senators has anything to do with it. Technically in a RR, the independent State should be allowed to pick those persons any way they choose. When it comes to Political Party's, their National Candidate for President is picked just this way...

[C1ay]

The Legislative Branch (Congress) is a single entity in the C&B System, as is the primary duty, legislation of law.

 

What is the point then in having two houses of representatives in Congress and why does the Constitution need to enumerate their powers in there's to be no check and balance between them?

[Freddy]

Article 5:..."that no State, without its consent shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate"

 

This last clause in Article 5 indeed was about the small states losing their equal representation in the Senate irregardless of population. See below Records of the Federal Convention and the vote on this last clause in Article 5.

 

"Mr. Govr Morris moved to annex a further proviso--"that no State, without its consent shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate"

 

This motion being dictated by the circulating murmurs of the small States was agreed to without debate, no one opposing it, or on the question, saying no."

Article 5: Records of the Federal Convention

[Freddy]

I am of the opinion that all Americans age 18 and who have graduated from high school or passed an equivalent GED test should be allowed to vote. It would be nice if more Americans exercised their right to vote. This would be an unlikely change to our Constitution. Coming from Massachusetts it is doubtful that the legislature would not send two Democrats to Washington as our Senators just as the people have since Senator Edward Brooke, the last Republican and first black senator from my state. I do not foresee the US electorate giving up their power to directly elect senators. In fact I am an advocate for the direct election of the president. The Constitution says, "We the people", not "We the states". Down with the Electoral College!

[jackson33]

Clay; Law (legislation) as perceived, was the underlying principle of equalizing the public to the governing. That is neither should be above the laws, whether in making or obeying. To insure laws were equitable to both, the outline to establish law was given a process, a viable consensus, which the stronger and weaker branches could/should have the power to overturn, but with the knowledge of the peoples opinion. A long way of saying, the founders were convinced, the checks would work, but again, so long as society and government could live with in the laws. (I might add many said 'laws of man').

 

Freddy; The founders were NOT concerned with 'education'. Their concern was entirely based on 'National Interest'. Though our history, many actual patriots were uneducated in the formal methods but believing in their country and with a desire to see their descendants live the life they had or better, died in the process to what is today. Then add 'educated in what'...Where in any country, not only the US, education has become in many ways indoctrination of a philosophy, some say in liberalism today in the US.

As said before, the founders were convinced IMO, that that National Interest, their livelihood or property alone should be required, to determine the future of the Nation they were establishing. As a society, each generation has confirmed those ideas, since its conception.

 

Since we are not going back to the times of the founders and its not practical to believe we could, only the education of the youth to what all it has taken from all the people involved and the direct link to what most feel is good, will allow the next generation to reconfirm what the last already have...

[C1ay]

Down with the Electoral College!

 

Do you also believe the World Series should be decided with one game? That is the equivalent of what you advocate. If the population of California gets big enough should they be able to elect the President for the rest of us with their enormous vote?

[CraigD]

If the “strict father/nurturant parent” model described by cognitive linguist George Lackoff in his 1996 book “Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think” is correct, and the correlation between political party affiliation and liberal/conservative worldviews is as strong as is generally assumed, then about half of US voters – liberals - prefer their leaders speak to them as a fellow adult, while the other half – conservatives – prefer that they do not. According to Lackoff’s model, conservatives prefer that their leaders not deal with them as peers, but make correct judgments and actions, which they follow without unduly questioning, while liberals prefer that their leaders confide in them and seek consensus prior to acting.

 

Though socio-psychological models such as Lackoff’s are difficult to quantify and test in a rigorous scientific manner, I’m impressed by how well this model addresses questions such as this thread’s.

 

Note that, while the model doesn’t imply that the liberal/conservative division among Americans has or will always be about 50/50, it does imply that change in this proportion occurs slowly, with most people’s political attitudes changing little during their lives, and tending to match those of their parents. It suggests that admonitions to the People to demand that their leaders speak to them like adults will have little effect, no matter how well argued or intended they are, most people being unlikely to profoundly change their worldview in this respect.

 

What, IMHO, Lackoff fails to explain adequately is the remarkable coincidence that Americans are so evenly divided between these two major worldviews, rather than one strongly dominating the other. I’ve no explanation for this, either, but suspect that a compelling explanation of it would be of even greater importance to social science than Lackoff’s model, which merely describes the two worldviews and relates it to various behaviors and beliefs.

[InfiniteNow]

...and the correlation between political party affiliation and liberal/conservative worldviews is as strong as is generally assumed, then about half of US voters – liberals - prefer their leaders speak to them as a fellow adult, while the other half – conservatives – prefer that they do not.

 

<...>

 

Note that, while the model doesn’t imply that the liberal/conservative division among Americans has or will always be about 50/50, it does imply that change in this proportion occurs slowly, with most people’s political attitudes changing little during their lives, and tending to match those of their parents.

 

<...>

 

What, IMHO, Lackoff fails to explain adequately is the remarkable coincidence that Americans are so evenly divided between these two major worldviews, rather than one strongly dominating the other.

First Craig, thank you for a response which is actually on the topic proposed in my OP. Not that I've disenjoyed the dialogue about our nations goverment, it's history, and the intent of it's founders, but one of the downsides of a single off-topic response is the need to address the falsehoods it contains... and then we tend to spin off on these non-thread-specific, though still interesting, tangents.

 

That said, you implied more than once in your post that the split between the conservative and liberal approach to politics is roughly even among the US populace, suggesting that it is a "remarkable coincidence" that we are all so "evenly divided."

 

Can you please cite a source for your comments relating to the relatively symetrical and "50/50" divisions of these ideological stances in modern day United States to which you referred?

 

I am extraordinarily curious to hear if studies bear out that suggestion, as I've sensed in my own personal and everyday experience these past several years a STRONG reaction (almost reflectance) away from the conservative political mindset, whether that be neo or paleo in description, since it has gone so far astray from it's original "fiscal-only" intent, and more toward a socially focussed approach... the addition of religious doctrine to our governance and the attempts to legislate very personal, subjective, and biased moralities to the masses.

 

Further, when one looks at the grassroots energy which has been inspired by candidates such as Barack Obama, I am quite interested to read more about the US ideological landscape, and would welcome data which supports your contention of an even split as posted above.

 

Thanks again for addressing the OP and not the OT posts, and sorry for the word diarrhea. My thought was orignally much more concise than what I have displayed here.