Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Hey kids, I know that it is fun to demonize the other side [View all]NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)4. Everything old is new again.

1878-1920
February 17, 1906
"Treason of the Senate"
In February 1906, readers of Cosmopolitan magazine opened its pages to this statement: Treason is a strong word, but not too strong to characterize the situation in which the Senate is the eager, resourceful, and indefatigable agent of interests as hostile to the American people as any invading army could be. This indictment launched a nine-part series of articles entitled Treason of the Senate.
The Treason series placed the Senate at the center of a major drive by Progressive Era reformers to weaken the influence of large corporations and other major financial interests on government policy making. Direct popular election of senators fit perfectly with their campaign to bring government closer to the people.
As originally adopted, the Constitution provided for the election of senators by individual state legislatures. In the years following the Civil War, that system became increasingly subject to bribery, fraud, and deadlock. As Congress took on a greater role in shaping an industrializing nation, those with a major business stake in that development believed they could best exert their influence on the U.S. Senate by offering financial incentives to the state legislators who selected its members.
The campaign for direct election of senators took on new force in 1906, following conviction of two senators on corruption charges. Each had taken fees for interceding with federal agencies on behalf of business clients. The resulting negative publicity inspired publisher William Randolph Hearst, then a U.S. House member and owner of Cosmopolitan magazine, to commission popular novelist David Graham Phillips to prepare a series of investigative articles.
More at: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Treason_of_the_Senate.htm
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
79 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
That's just the point. I am not a professional writer and bow to the pros
Pretzel_Warrior
Oct 2013
#54
No they are not sheilded, if you want the code, here's the US Constitution:
Katashi_itto
Oct 2013
#39
Fine. Then that means if they succeed, Democracy is effectively nullified by a
Katashi_itto
Oct 2013
#53
If you can claim that some idiot with a pistol strapped to his waist legally is a terrorist...
NutmegYankee
Oct 2013
#3
It does not, what they are doing is exactly within the parameters of the Constitution
nadinbrzezinski
Oct 2013
#21
In theory I agree with you but that begs the question is the United States at war with terrorists
Uncle Joe
Oct 2013
#23
I agree with your interpretation of the Constitution in the strictest sense, they're not committing
Uncle Joe
Oct 2013
#29
The primary difference being was in "passing legislation" and not undermining
Uncle Joe
Oct 2013
#50
"Dangerous to democracy" is the ability to destroy the economy as a response to laws passed they
TheKentuckian
Oct 2013
#68
There is a major difference between the executive or legislative branches making a
Uncle Joe
Oct 2013
#74
I suppose if they are doing it for purely ideological reasons, that's one thing
bhikkhu
Oct 2013
#51
But IMHO they're all such stupid poopy-heads that it really ought to be against the law!
struggle4progress
Oct 2013
#49
Threads that critisize Democrats and DU are even more unhelpful that someone's obvious
FSogol
Oct 2013
#63
It's much easier for them to demonize others rather than look at themselves
Corruption Inc
Oct 2013
#65