I am in full agreement. The House was to represent the People; the Senate was to represent the States. Immune from popularity, the Senate could soberly (Ted Kennedy should have taken notice) consider each law coming before it.

"What is eluding me is how a state's interest will diverge from a citizen's interest?"

That's a great question. Ideologically, if everyone were seeking to uphold individual rights and respecting free commerce, I suspect that the differences would be small. Unfortunately, Benjamin Franklin noted that those who would seek for Federal offices would be largely "knaves" and those attracted to power and its exercise. The effective counter is to spread out the power to make it more difficult for the rise of individual tyrants.

Additionally, there are always regional interests of various farmers, mechants, miners, fishers, etc., that are better dealt with on a local or regional level than at the national one. I would advocate that education is definitely one to lump here as well.

Why is Common Core such a disaster? Aside from the fact that it doesn't care one whit about actual education, it is a one-size-all approach to managing tens of millions of students. And yet at the same time you see people complaining about class sizes because of the lack of individual attention and the tailoring of the program to individual needs. This is key. The reason the market works is because it ultimately gets down to individuals making choices for and being responsible for their own welfare. The more you abstract the decision-making away from the individual, the less efficient it becomes, the more centralized becomes the power, and the less the individual retains control over one's own destiny.

As to why it is better for the State to have power than the individual, that actually isn't the case. Remember, the People already have one legislative body wholly responsible to them: the House. But as we see with mob mentality rules, as a voting bloc, the People are notoriously bad at making long-term decisions. Why? Because the vast majority have neither the time nor inclination to really research the proposals, understand the issues, and develop plans to deal with things. That's a full-time job for someone. The market is replete with examples of specialization. Government is no different, we just treat it differently because of its penchant for abuse of power. But there is a reason for local planning and development organizations as a function of local and State government. There is a reason for a Public Works department to manage utilities. It is because these people can specialize in those fields and leverage that knowledge to bring better outcomes to their respective markets. The Founders were all men of extraordinary learning, and they literally debated from dusk to dawn for months on how to craft a new government. If they had not been the professional political science experts they were, they could not have drawn up a compact as sound and groundbreaking as they did.

In summary, the bicameral legislature exists to make sure that those paying for a government program get a vote, and those implementing the program get a vote. Both have their opportunity to contribute.

I think mostly is because they had to travel back and forth to DC...by horse. It also probably didn't pay much. You did it as part of your civic duty, not the love of the job

Do you know why they hated the job, versus those today who seem to love it ?
In Md, our state leguslature is so fractionated due to gerrymandering ( we have two congressional districts in a SCOTUS lawsuit over the issue ) that I'm not sure we'd get a better result than someone who has to be directly elected.

Think of the Senate and the House of Representatives like an Adult and a Child. Naturally the Child would say, "We should get a pony!" The Senators, being beholden NOT to the people, but to the state's interests, would reply, "No, we don't need a pony."

Now both the Senate and the House are directly beholden to the people, bad things happen. Figuratively, the Child (the house of rep's) says, "We should get a pony!" Now, another child (the senate) replies, "We should get TWO ponies!"

No longer is there a voice of reason and restraint at the table of the federal government. It's not a coincidence that the vast majority of federal programs and spending followed this amendment. The people literally learned that they could vote themselves the money.

Maybe that's just it.

I say drill, baby, drill.
Both for jobs and energy independence.

Regarding Senators, I think, the Constitution only read that each state has two seats. How they were to be chosen was up to each State, until the 17th.

Yes, I agree virtual meeting. There is no reason for Reps to travel to DC, or spend time there.
This would increase the cost to lobbiest greatly. Now, they would have to travel state to state, instead of just camping out in DC.
However, I'm not sure I agree with1:30000 - i see something like the Senate in Star Wars.
We can barely get consensus now. What could be done is a mach 1:30,000 Reps.
Set up a virtual House, proportioned as such. Put bills before it and see how it works.
The problem arises when you need a 2/3 or 3/4 majority vote. I don't know how you get 7000 reps in line. It would be like herd cats.

Regarding Senators, I think, the Constitution only read that each state has two seats. How they were to be chosen was up to each State, until the 17th.

Yes, I agree virtual meeting. There is no reason for Reps to travel to DC, or spend time there.
This would increase the cost to lobbiest greatly. Now, they would have to travel state to state, instead of just camping out in DC.
However, I'm not sure I agree with1:30000 - i see something like the Senate in Star Wars.
We can barely get consensus now. What could be done is a mach 1:30,000 Reps.
Set up a virtual House, proportioned as such. Put bills before it and see how it works.
The problem arises when you need a 2/3 or 3/4 majority vote. I don't know how you get 7000 reps in line. It would be like herd cats.

The reason to mention recall of Senators in the Constitution, is to remove all doubt that a State may, in accordance with its own laws, recall its Senate delegation or either member thereof.

That said, I approve your idea that the Senators should draw a State, not a federal, salary.

Here, on the subject of the House of Representatives, is a link to another suggestion: http://www.americaagain.net/the_last_...

The premise: why shouldn't Representatives spend most of their time in their districts, and meet virtually instead of actually and physically? Incidentally, the House must meet this way, if it is to grow to the original maximum level of one Representative for every thirty thousand persons. I'm sure the OpenSim virtual-world environment (intended for Massively Multi-player On-line Role Playing Games, like "Second Life", but with open-source technology) would be readily adaptable to virtualizing meetings of the House.

The Senate, use to, represent the voice of the State. The House of Rep,s the voice of the people.
When the 17th amendment was approved, it effectively took away the voice of the state, and the bicameral congress, and gave us a House of Reps of 535 members of which 100 served a 6 year term.
The Senate served 6 years, which moved slower at the state level, but Representatives served 2 which better reflected the changing population. It was supposed to prevent drastic changes in policy.
Prior to the 17th, Senators were not career politicians like we have now. They were chosen from the State Legislature, which means they were 1. already elected by the people, 2. vetted, with a voting history in the state. Further, most of those chosen hated the job, and rarely held the seat for more the 1 or 2 terms. So, repealing the 17th could effectively give you term limits.

Actually, if the States came up with their own way to seat a Senator, we wouldn't have to worry about that. they can put in the recall methods or not.
If a State wants popular vote, let them.
Also, make the States pay for their own Senator/Representative. Why is this a FedGov payroll thing? Same with their staffers. The FedGov should pay the custodial services, that's about it.
Let the State pay them whatever the State wants to pay them.

We are long past due for a convention of the states.

Time to "Stop doing business" with the federal government.

Hi blarman,
First, thank you for taking the time and effort to go into such detail. I really appreciate it. Second, no wonder our country is going down the drain - I'm not a dumb person, but even my interest starts to wander when presented with this topic. It's ironic that the system that is supposed to protect our freedoms is so hard to ( find interesting enough ?) to learn / focus on.
That being said, I appreciate the purpose of dividing the powers. What is eluding me is how a state's interest will diverge from a citizen's interest? And I can also see how, originally, landholders would be given ( take) more power, especially given the stark class / education distinctions that I believe were present at our founding. ( not to say the same isn't true still) but somehow that doesn't seem how a free and equal (opportunity, not outcome) society would be. But my main question is why the state, an an entity, is better to have power than individual citizens collectively having the power of a vote ? Does it come down to who will be easier to bribe ? And who will be easier to educate or b.s. ? Maybe I just need to go read Mark Levin's book...
I frequently marvel how smart and well-educated our founders were to craft the documents they did.

A desert that he nevertheless wants to control, see Bundy Ranch and Utah's move to take back National Parks because the Department of Energy is prohibiting oil exploration all over the State.

+100 for that if I could.

I agree that Amendments - because they must pass a significantly more rigorous approval process - should not be subject to twilight provisions. The electorate must be able to take upon themselves lasting commitments as well as more temporary ones.

We live in hope.
But remember the old adage: "Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst."

We don't know. Man's rights should not be made
subject to popular whims every few years. Of
course, 50 years seems like a long time, but it is
not so long, if you look over time.

One through ten are considered part of the Constitution as originally proposed by the founders and adopted by the the citizens in 1791. After that amendments were considered to correct for perceived "problems" at that moment in time. Some of which make sense today, some don't.. I don't really think the amendments to end slavery are at risk or the 19th (women's sufferage. The amendment to reduce the voting age has essentially proven that 18 year olds are not mature enough to vote (after all they aren't even ready to have their own health insurance).
A time limit on ratifying new amendments is an excellent idea. Just as in the 1789 convention their will be lots of .... (shall we call it) debate.

Members of the Armed Services should not be
given special voting priveleges.
It would be very wrong to put Amendments 13,
14, and 15 in danger every 50 years. (Do not for-
get the neo-Confederates in the lily-white South
who treated the black people like dirt for nearly
100 years after slavery was abolished, and de-
prived them of the vote with rigged 'literacy
tests",etc. This is from a Southern white fe-
male).
Freedom of religion does mean freedom
from religion. Freedom of thought and free-
dom of conscience (which include freedom of
religion) should be held as sacred.

I share your concern, but the fact that a vote on the matter was held indicates that not all hope is lost. It is only one State so far. We have to hope that other States will take up the call to take their power back.

Currently, there is an antagonistic view of "religion" in the Courts, with many Courts ruling against the propriety of such things as Nativity displays at Christmas, cross-shaped monuments, etc. which are overwhelmingly supported by the local peoples yet subject to onerous and frivolous lawsuits usually by outsiders. The Constitution only limits the adoption of any particular religion by government so as to prevent a national "religion" and thereby a proscription of expression of other thoughts or ways of life, but it was never meant to mandate that public functions could have no religious portion whatsoever. The original Statehouse was used for more than a century for religious meetings when Congress was not in session. Congress is still opened by a prayer, which by any interpretation is a religious expression. Many attempt to use the courts to infringe on the public expression of religion by using the courts or legislation - see the Hobby Lobby case, etc.

Number 22 is great. Too bad it wasn't in place in
the 1930's. Amendments should not be periodically resubmitted for ratification. The citizens would have already had too many of their rights wiped out of the Constitution... And why "other than the bill of rights"? If Numbers 22, 13, 14, and 19 could be put in periodic danger, why not the entire Bill of Rights?--
There should be a provision that if a new A-
mendment were not ratified within a certain per-
iod (like 7 years), it would not become part of
the Constitution.

That is exactly why an Article V (Convention of States) is needed.