I'll be interested to read your comments about that.It is, isn't it? I am currently working through the Pennsylvania constitution of September 28, 1776. I'm not too far into it yet, but I think there will be some interesting differences between this and the Virginia constitution. In the introduction to this chapter, the editor of the book characterized the Virginia constitution as more typical and the Pennsylvania constitution as more radical.
When I think about the way the separation of powers work at one level there seems to be a civic trinity. The states are sovereign in one way, the federal government is sovereign in a slightly different way, and the citizen is sovereign in a third way. The states seem to express sovereignty as the primary lawgiver on the one hand and the elector of one of the houses of the bicameral Federal legislature. The individual expresses sovereignty by voting both for state and federal offices including the executive branch uniquely and asserting rights against both the state and the federal government. And the federal government expresses sovereignty through mechanisms like the supremacy clause. These divided expressions of sovereignty have a strong appeal in preventing too much power from accumulating at any one place.I'm curious how these fit together. Why is it okay for state legislators to elect a Senator, but not for the national legislature to elect a President?
For all of the lionizing of FDR it was the judgment of the majority of people that his unprecedented reign in the White House was on the hole not optimal. Further because other people who wanted to be president were prevented, people who are in other positions of power like congressmen and senators that it was achievable to pass a constitutional amendment to insert a term limit. Congressional term limits thus far have failed because congressmen and senators have an interest in not being term limited out. This is why it was particularly disappointing when this was the only promise in the "contract with America" that failed to be passed through the house. The key voice in torpedoing congressional term limits out of the contract of America after the Republicans were placed in the majority was Dick Army. He did not run for reelection but opened up a lobbying business and became filthy rich, making a lot of Republicans exceedingly cynical about the people they vote for on what there seemed like fairly hollow promises. This is precisely why Donald Trump was able to find a willing audience among Republicans on an anti-establishment agenda. Dick Armey reversing on congressional term limits alerted republican voters that hollow campaign promises were a major problem and there after many examples of this kind of "Betrayal" seem to be reinforced by campaign issues never getting solved but providing fighter for campaign after campaign after campaign. Further driving this point home, abortion (unpopular with Republicans for 50 years) only gets resolved satisfactorily (from the perspective of Republican voters) after Donald Trump actually pursued policies that resulted in a different Supreme Court position. This again carries an inference that a lot of the issues are not being resolved because it serves the interest of the power elite to not resolve them. Republican voters make this observation of Democrats politicians also, but Democrat politicians are not betraying Republican voters, Republican politicians are. Thus, you get a coalition of Democrat and Republican never Trump constituents within the power lead that very plausibly lend credence to the deep state narrative which seems to be vindicated in the current policy of law fair against Donald Trump vis-à-vis the 2024 election cycle.It seems like you'd either want the "self cleansing cycle" in both cases, or see it as unnecessary in either of them. But I'm not a historian or anything, so I could be missing something.