Paul Ryan is reported as NOT seeking re-election.

[DixonHur 11171]

4 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

But as you point out--term limits were in the Articles of Confederation.  And the Constitution specifically omits term limits.  So when they were drafting the Constitution, the Framers knew how to write a term-limit provision, and they made the specific decision not to.

Moreover, as you point out, Congress was an unpaid gig.  That doesn't indicate that they didn't want "a political class," as you conclude.  It indicates that they completely wanted a political class.  By making Congress an unpaid gig, they excluded all but the upper class from holding office.  Farmers who worked their own land couldn't afford to be in Washington for most of the year away from their farms.  Merchants whose livelihoods depended on day-to-day trade couldn't afford to abandon their shops and trade for years at a time.  Only the plantation class from the South and the wealthiest of the merchant class in the North could afford to hold congressional office.

The expansion of the franchise gets a lot of the recognition, but the democratizing force of making Congress a paid position is under-recognized. 

Finally, I think your reliance on Adams and Jefferson is misplaced.  Adams and Jefferson are looking back at the only previous republic available for comparison at their time: the Roman Republic.  And their view was that the Republic fell because of the hyper-ambition of a small number of politicians (Caesar, Sulla, Marius).  They took inspiration from the system of electing magistrates annually, and preventing a consul from holding consecutive terms.  But that doesn't mean that you didn't have professional politicians--you absolutely did.  The senatorial class was a distinct class in Rome that held office from the time of maturity to retirement.  Consuls became proconsuls.  And then they would come back and run for another consulship.  Their idea was that, as in Rome, offices would rotate among a very small class of politicians.

Sure aside from their own words and the analysis from modern Constitutional scholars, you're right, there's not a lot of evidence to support the idea that the Founding Fathers were against having a political class.

A couple other quick notes, nowhere did I say Congress was an "unpaid gig", so not sure where that came from.  And the Founding Fathers did not base the US Constitution on the Roman Republic, the architecture, yes, but not the Constitution.  The Constitution was based on British law and European Enlightenment.

Finally, I'd love to see some of the writings by the founders where they stated a desire to have a political class.

 

 

[David Dennison 18652]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

Finally, I'd love to see some of the writings by the founders where they stated a desire to have a political class.

 

 

Whether they meant to or not, the founders created a political class by a establishing a government that was only open to white, male property owners. 

[DixonHur 11171]

22 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Whether they meant to or not, the founders created a political class by a establishing a government that was only open to white, male property owners. 

I understand the spirit of your point, but it's not factually correct.  The founders made no such requirement in the Constitution.  You only had to be a citizen over 21. 

The problem you're articulating came via the states, which were allowed to set their own voting requirements.  Not all of them included property ownership as a requirement, and a few even allowed free blacks, and women to vote.

Edited April 12, 2018 by DixonHur

[kopp0e 1135]

If Ryan ever releases a "tell all" book, I might give it a read...

Almost everyone that either quits or is fired from this administration will likely see lucrative offers from publishers...

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

4 hours ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Out of rep for the day, but this is perfect

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

In order to get agreement on budget caps to allow a spending bill to pass and avoid a government shutdown, Speaker Paul Ryan promised the Freedom Caucus they could have a meaningless vote to show the folks back home that the deficit mattered to them. That's after they passed a nearly $2 trillion tax cut for corporations and the wealthy. That meaningless vote will happen Thursday, when they will bring the amendment up under a suspension of the rules.

Wait, you say—don't they use suspension votes for things that aren't policy, like naming post offices and declaring National Donut Day? Yes. They also have a habit of doing it for this and in fact did it in 2011, when the late and very great Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York blasted them for it: "To give a constitutional amendment the same consideration as renaming a post office is embarrassing for us and a disgrace to the dignity and tradition of the House," she said.

The Democratic Whip's office lambastes Republicans this time around for a "political stunt that is meant for Republicans to appear to care about fiscal responsibility."

Instead, it is an extreme and dangerous proposal that would potentially force cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid by requiring a three-fifths vote to run a deficit, regardless of recessions or major disasters. […]
 
H.J.Res. 2 is purely ideological. The United States of America has never written specific fiscal policy preferences into the Constitution, which is what this resolution seeks to do.

It's entirely a stunt, and a cynical one at that. It's so ridiculous that even blue dog Democrats (what's left of them) are dismissing it as "all for show," and so transparently so that they don't even need to worry about Republicans weaponizing it. When even the blue dogs aren't afraid of opposing a balanced budget amendment, you know it's bullshit.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[DixonHur 11171]

Well, I guess we now know the top story for all of tomorrow's Fox News programs.

"Republicans pass Balanced Budget Amendment over the objections from Dems"

Edited April 12, 2018 by DixonHur

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

lolz

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3868]

7 hours ago, kevwun said:

I'm sure they never dreamed he would fire Comey.  I don't think the investigation would have gotten this far without a special counsel.  Of course thinking they could work with and influence a stupid, loudmouth conman in the first place was a really bad decision.

With how torn Comey was about what to disclose for both sides leading up to the election, due to fears of being seen as swaying the election, I too doubt he would have done anything beyond a report on proven Russian actions.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

20 minutes ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

With how torn Comey was about what to disclose for both sides leading up to the election, due to fears of being seen as swaying the election, I too doubt he would have done anything beyond a report on proven Russian actions.

The investigation would have followed the facts, applied the facts to the law, and determine if a crime was committed.  Comey wouldn’t suppress a criminal investigation for political reasons either.  It would undermine his authority and integrity within the FBI.  Micheal Flynn was already in serious criminal jeopardy before Comey was fired.  Which is probably why Comey was fired.

Comey might not have been as exhaustive as Mueller’s team but the bad guys would get caught, most of them anyway. However, it could have taken a lot longer.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz