Is it too late to save our Republic?

 History has not been kind in its review of past experiments by Homo sapiens in self-governing.  Whatever the heights reached, all past experiments have collapsed. 

•   Those that were based on the personal power of an individual failed when that person died.
• Those based on an ideal of any sort, failed when those ideals were abandoned in practice if not in words.

Students of various concentrations will focus on different elements of any society, even as they agree that there is "trouble in Paradise."  Those who study human nature will suggest one of many as the major reason for decline.  Those who come from a study of the Bible will agree in part but disagree in still another part, while those who study politics and governance will come up with still another major factor.

Who is right?

I don't know... absolutely.  I strongly suspect that the most accurate answer is likely to be an amalgam of all of those raised, plus some not yet discussed (at least to our knowledge).

But I have a suggestion for a prime "trigger" that guaranteed the collapse of our Republic.  And I place the blame on a historical hero of the United States of America:  

                                            Abraham Lincoln!

Surprised?  Yeah... me too.  But hear me out.  There are two absolute truths that contribute to the inevitability of the collapse of the United States of America:

1. The inherent limitations of a Republic to remain responsive to the citizenry, and
2. the inherent nature of man to never relinquish control once acquired.

Limitations of a Republic:

In November of 2013, Professor Donald Livingston, Professor Emeritus at Emory University, gave a speech at the University of Virginia on Republicanism (the government form, not the political ideology), David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln.  That speech was broadcast on C-SPAN.  Now, most of us have had ideas come to us suddenly and the proverbial light bulb appears.  But...this speech caused flashbulbs of incredible brilliance going off continually.  Never before had I even considered the effect of our form of government on the current status of political representation.

I had been taught that our government was not a pure democracy but a Republic.  But the differences between a pure democracy and a republic were never a matter of intense or critical study.  Nor was there ever a study of the advantages and/or limitations of a republican form of government.

Had this been, and does it continue to be, a missing element is our Social and Governmental studies?  To answer that question completely requires a reading and study of commentaries on the subject by David Hume and Thomas Jefferson.  Or...for the equivalent of a Cliff Notes summary you might want to watch Prof. Livingston's speech on C-SPAN (  http://www.c-span.org/video/?316075-1/ThomasJeffers   ) which would reduce what otherwise would take months of study to about an hour of video.  The substance of what stuck with me from watching and listening to Professor Livingston I present below...and I am confident that substance will get your attention and initiate thought and debate.

The general view of republican governance was one where size mattered, if you were going to have representative rule.  If you get too big, you lose representative responsiveness.  Jefferson's vision was one of additional republics being formed as both population and area grew, maintaining the people's control of government.  The republics would then band together in a Commonwealth for cooperative defense and trade.  Up until the Civil War, succession was often discussed and seen as a legitimate evolving action for growth.  It wasn't until Abraham Lincoln reflecting the governmental philosophy of Thomas Hobbs, determined, by force, that the southern states could not secede, and the "indivisible" term became the norm when speaking about the republic. Jefferson's view of the various republics being the political unit, to one where people became the political unit and control was to be centralized.  The French Revolution resulted in the formation of the French Republic, the first modern large modern state republic, looking to the individual as the political unit.

No one comments on the mutually exclusive concepts of republican government as laid out by Jefferson and then by Lincoln (following the Hobbs model), and yet the significance and effects of this clash on our lives is long standing and enormous. The two approaches are incompatible, as Livingstone states.

At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the House of Representatives elected one Representative for every 30,000 people.  But in 1911 the number of Representatives was capped at 435.  The result is that today there is one Representative for every 720,000 people.   

If the 720,000 to 1 ratio were applied to the original 13 states, the House would be composed of 5 members, and 8 states would have no representatives at all.

On the other hand, to keep the same 30,000 to 1 ratio today, the House would have 10,500 members.

We have outgrown our ability to functionally self-govern.  The result is the gradual buildup of awareness on the part of the public that "their" government is no longer "theirs!"  Add that to the fact that over time those involved in governing become intoxicated with their power and influence and lose all instinct to hide their disrespect and disdain for those who elect them, and the awareness of loss of both freedom and benefit from the government becomes a growing visceral anger in the citizenry.  

The Human DNA-based desire to retain power benefit once achieved:

There is no proof that Abraham Lincoln knew about the conceptual and operational limitations of a Republic.  And there seems much to suggest that he was not a power-hungry person ready to sacrifice others to his personal goals, but was rather a person who cared about others and would have earnestly denied being "power-hungry."

But he was surrounded by elected officials who certainly saw the possibility of the southern states breaking away and forming their own Republic as a loss of power (and certainly financial opportunities).  On his part, it is arguable that he would see the formation of a southern republic as a sign that he had failed as President to "protect" the "country" as he viewed it.

His (and the northern states) success in preventing the formation of a new Republic cemented the ultimate destruction of the United States of America.  It is now too large to govern on the basis of citizen control, and that is proven by the current behavior of the National Government in dictating to citizens rather than looking to those citizens for direction.

That the argument for placing the burden of History on Abraham Lincoln for the ultimate demise of the United States of America.

Are we all on The "Plantation?"

 Humans are made uneasy, sometimes even scared, by "different."  When we were kids, a new kid in school had to be... what is today's grown-up word?... "vetted" before he became a part of the integral group.

This has been true all through human history.  It won't change.  And... it isn't a bad or good thing, just an element of life.

What used to make America Great (among a number of things) was that people who were "different" came here ready to contribute but also ready to assimilate.  They assimilated habits, attitudes, ideas from those already here BUT those already here also learned about and adopted habits, attitudes and ideas from the newcomers.

Were there fights?  Yes!  Was there disrespect and derision coming from both sides?  Of course.  But the end was that when a person who came to this country showed that they could do a job, would respect the truth and tell it, as well be happy for the opportunity to become part of the country... there was acceptance, assimilation, and the "melting pot" became a fact and was proven to work.

Even today, Blacks see discrimination when they are not automatically accepted as they are, or their behavior and ideas are not embraced.  Why is that discrimination?  Why aren't they expected to go through the same "rite of passage" that the rest of us had to experience?  Italians were disrespected, not accepted, nor were their ideas of life when they arrived.  It took time for them to embrace American life as it existed, get used to the habits and mores of those already here... but when it happened, they became a part of the whole. 

The exact same thing happened to the Irish, the Scandinavians, the Spanish, and all the other nationalities that came to American shores.  There was no difference in the challenge.

There WAS one difference, though.  and that was that most people of color did not choose to come to America.  They were enslaved by their own people, sold to middlemen, and the brought to America where Plantation owners continued the enslavement.  THAT was profoundly different... and injurious.

But no person of color today in America that wishes to be a part of America has any impediment different from every other citizen if he or she wants to strive to be a successful part of America.  Look at the success of President Obama... of Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Supreme Court Justice Thomas, Senator Tim Scott and others.  They succeeded because of effort and showing a desire to join with others to accomplish positive things.

The biggest impediment to to Blacks today is an attitude that many of them hold that was fostered by the very political party that claims to want to "help" them... the Democrat Party, together with the portion of them that can be labeled as "Race Profiteers."  Giving anyone, regardless of background, education, skin color or foot size, money because they are not succeeding in school or in the workplace is not helping them...It rewards the imprisonment of dependency.

What should have happened was the creating of programs that rewarded success, mandated successful teaching, in school and in trades, that was proven by accomplishment.  Don't reward birthing children into single parent homes.  Hunt down "fathers" and enforce their support of the children they father.  Show respect by expecting accomplishment and success even as you make tutorial help available where needed... provided the recipient(s) work to benefit from the help.  Reward 100% attendance in schools.  Then step back and see how the colored community matches and may even outpace the accomplishments of those from other parts of the world when they come to America.  They are just as able and I claim we disrespect them by not expecting superior accomplishments and contributing to American Life in major ways as a regular thing.

But...back to the headline...

Has anyone else noticed how all of America is starting to look like one giant plantation?  One controlled by a limited group of "overseers" and brooking no challenge to their authority?

We now life under a dual dictatorship of the government bureaucracy and angry minority of various deviant purposes.  We now are being forced to promote beliefs, actions and attitudes of which we disapprove.  Once we were prepared to ignore beliefs found abhorrent in the interest of civil individual freedom. 

Suddenly we have to promote behavior, mistreatment of children, and deviant lifestyles or we find ourselves fired and unable to support our families.  That is no different from being enslaved on a plantation or being an indentured servant!  We no longer even have the right to decide what power we want to use to power our cars, or cook with, or walk around without a diaper over our faces if the overseers declare that we must.  And that is also true about medical procedures.  Now our plantation overseers can declare we need to be injected with something on the grounds that "IT IS GOOD FOR US," all to be taken on "trust" and without any proof that has been checked for truth and accuracy.  That has already happened during the COVID fiasco.  And it is being threated again, and will be activated whenever the overseers deem it necessary to prove to us that THEY are in control and that WE must obey.

It is a large plantation and often feels as if we have a degree of freedom, but stop and look around and you'll see the same walls being built around us that emulate the process that hunters used to use to trap wild pigs.  Put out free food!  Put up a fence next to the food!  Keep putting out more food!  Add a second side of the fence!  More food!  Build a third side of the fence and add more food.  Finally put up the gate and you have the pigs trapped and you can feed them OR NOT at your discretion because you now own them.  Our government denies it but that is what they are doing to our entire country.  When they have the right mix of people here they will finish the fencing, shut the gates and they will own us and no longer try to hide it.

Do you REALLY want a fair election?

 There are two challenges that predominate today that make a "fair" election possible.  For the purposes of this discussion, define "fair" as

1. Truthful campaigning with the guaranteed right of an opponent to reply on the merits of a claim or accusation; and
2. the guarantee of honest and truthful preparation, submission, and counting of votes.

Not sure how number two can be accomplished with the current judicial climate.  One would be to go back to everyone voting on election day unless the individual would be out of his or her home town or out of the country and applied for an absentee ballot.  If applied to everyone, that would seem to be not only fair, but Constitutional.

Campaigning is a different matter, and that arguably could be solved quickly if the American people wanted to do exactly that.  Everyone is looking for an edge. Human nature doesn't ever reward or strive for "fairness," so acting as if it is, is duplicitous. Not sure if this would help the voter searching for truth, but how about:

• requiring every campaign advertisement to require also providing the opponent's answer or explanation. In print it would be on the same page as the original claim or accusation. In broadcast, it would follow immediately and be clearly labeled as the "official" reply.

• Have an independent research panel, subject to charges of perjury charges for errors, empowered to fact check each and every campaign ad, statement and reply for truthful accuracy, including a duplicitous parsing of sentences to appear to say one thing but not technically saying anything of the sort (a common practice in politics today). THAT sort of thing is lying by inviting assumptions on the part of the reader, listener, viewer. And make prosecution mandatory, not at the discretion of any prosecutor or Judge; an accusation leads to a trial, no excuses or way(s) out.

I suspect that would stop the "October Surprises" as well as the "Russian dossier" type fabrications. It would also cut the profits of news publications, stations and print shops, although each "job" would require double the space of the initial claim or accusation, so maybe it would even out.

Violations could escalate to make the rules effective: first violation would deserve a monetary fine, a second... elimination from a debate... a third, removal from the subject ballot.  

Re-establishing a Meritocracy will restore equality in America!

 One of the biggest negative factors in America in 2023 is the perception(s) of racial inequality.  Arguably overblown by politicians and media, there is nonetheless an ongoing existence, and it is worth considering the likely causes of the survival of that inequality.

Over just the last century, trillions of dollars have been spent, advertised and publicized as dedicated to erasing that inequality.  A close examination of those expenditures strongly suggests that those funds were not only not effective in the asserted goal(s) but in fact exacerbated the inequality.  Why?  Consider:

• The government funded those not working with no requirement to do any work or train for future employment, thus sending the unstated message that not working was not only acceptable, but that to expect the poor to actually train for employment was beyond their ability.
• Poor women who had out of wedlock children actually were given more publicly funded money the more out of wedlock children they birthed, abandoning any effort to identify and hold the men fathering those children responsible for supporting their families.
• Funding of education became oriented to meeting the demands and aligning with teachers' union's definition of education as well as their focus on teachers' salary increases independent of schoolchildren's level of achievement, leading to "social" advancement from grade to grade without requiring minimal student accomplishment of learning goals, thus granting High School diplomas to children not educated to a level that enabled them to hold meaningful employment.

For many poor and virtually all minorities, these steps all served to artificially handicap and often block advancement in the business world and resulted in valid resentment on the part of those subjected to this disparate treatment.

Not being able to deny the factual basis of the resentment, government has for years tried to illegally and imperfectly make up for these underlying and causative errors by granting employment and admissions not earned to those who did not receive the promised or implied level of education needed, and this was done in a manner that left the unstated and unadmitted impression that those in charge of these programs were doing so because the recipients were not capable of success

on their own initiative.  This was and remains absolutely untrue and serves to insult and disrespect the abilities and potentials of the poor, whether of minority status or not.

But once identified, what can and must be done to provide true equality to all?

No one can perfectly and completely identify and promise results... but there are a number of steps that may be worth considering:

1. Stop rewarding failure.  Make unemployment and any grants dependent on some public work effort and/or job training.  Doing so provides the recipient not only with the potential of future employment but the working and study supports his or her own sense of self-worth.
2. Stop financially rewarding out of wedlock births, instead increase the public effort to identify and hold the father(s) of such children financially responsible.
3. Stop social promotion in schools.  There was a time when if a child didn't pass the tests (and tests ARE needed) they were held back.  That has to be restored as the norm.
4. If children in a class are not learning, the teacher has to be held responsible.  It is time for them to be accountable for results.  If a person cannot effectively teach, they should not be being paid for or holding the position of "teacher."  That insults the children, their parents, and the school district and school in which that person is employed... as well as pulls down the respect other effective teachers deserve to receive.
5. If a school or school district will not serve the children first, parents must be able to transfer their child to a school where their child's learning and accomplishment is paramount.  That means educational tax money moving with the children, not based on residence address.
6. No child cannot learn, and any argument to the contrary must never be accepted.  If a child is recalcitrant and refuses to learn, at a certain age they should be made to enroll in the military where many youth used to be saved by the installation of discipline absent acceptable excuses.  It did work.  It will work again.

There are certainly more possibilities and readers may want to add those for consideration.  This is not a "save all" or "perfect" list.  It is but a starting point for a discussion... a realistic one... about recognizing what is, what is wrong with what is, and some of the ways worth considering if America wants to get back to valuing what it used to and what its success is based and dependent upon... Meritocracy.

We claim to guarantee a chance, not a result, ... but we do need to re-establish access to that chance instead of implying that some are not able and thus preventing a mental attitude dedicated to achievement and self-worth.  It isn't money.  It is respect, with the concomitant responsibility, that must be taught, expected and honored.

We are abandoning what made America great

 My father was an immigrant.  He did it legally; he got citizens to guarantee a job, filled out all the necessary paperwork and waited for approval.  He came to this country with hopes, a job to earn his keep, and a desire to make a life for himself and to help his mother (a widow) and his sister.

He also came with a vision of America.  He often told me that he knew people here were different... from many parts of the world.  But he also said they (and He) came here to become a part of what America was... a blending of many nationalities that came with a common desire to become "better" than they could in their "home" country.

Dad respected his birth country, Norway, and honored the people there.  BUT he always pointed to his citizenship papers and was proud to say he was an American... not a Norwegian-American, but just... American.  He came here not to reproduce Norway, but to become a part of what America is all about.  And he saw people joining in pride to be part of that whole.  

Sure, many nationalities upon arrival banded together to make their adjustment easier, even as their children went to school and became proficient in English, history, and learned how to succeed in America... and to be proud of belonging.  

My father loved music and he often made the analogy comparing America to an orchestra.  All classes of instruments are different, and the players have different abilities as well as individual attributes.  But they come together knowing the purpose is to advance the performance of the orchestra.  They are segregated by instrumentation, they play different parts, they interpret music in varying ways.  But all that individuality is voluntarily subjugated to the conductor's direction and interpretation to create a whole... a whole musical offering that sees the beauty of the unified effort and vision.

THAT was the America that welcomed (well, mostly.  Even "square heads" were joked about and not always welcome in the beginning) his presence and his willingness to "take a chance" and depend on his own self-worth and the quality of that effort.

Today, many in America want each instrument to not only "be in charge" of their music, but to declare that to not get their own way was an insult and a lack of respect.  That seems true within the instrument category and withing all of the instruments in what used to be an orchestra.  That "orchestra" has turned into a group of anarchists producing chaos instead of music and not even being in the same room without throwing words (or worse) at each other.  The Conductor has been "cancelled" and two attitudes have taken over:

• victimhood, and
• tribal narcissism

Add to that a foolish and false belief that there are no such things as consequences, and the result is disintegration of all that enabled America to become the great nation it once was, as President Reagan once described it, "a shining city on a hill" for the rest of the world.  It (or at least the politicians and self-described leaders) has destroyed itself.

Just as chaos of individualism absolutely destroys the purpose and existence of an orchestra, so the current narcissistic victimhood tribalism ideology will destroy the United States of America.

Sadly, Reagon's city on a hill is being destroyed from within.  I miss it, and my father would feel even more disappointed were he still alive.

Isn't the United States too big, and its governing too far away from its Citizens?

 A reading and study of commentaries on the subject by David Hume and Thomas Jefferson.  Or...for the equivalent of a Cliff Notes summary you might want to watch Prof. Livingston's speech on C-SPAN (  http://www.c-span.org/video/?316075-1/ThomasJeffers   ) which would reduce what otherwise would take months of study to about an hour of video.

The general view of republican governance was one where size mattered, if you were going to have representative rule.  If you get too big, you lose representative responsiveness.  Jefferson's vision was one of additional republics being formed as both population and area grew, maintaining the people's control of government.  The republics would then band together in a Commonwealth for cooperative defense and trade.  Up until the Civil War, succession was often discussed and seen as a legitimate evolving action for growth.  It wasn't until Abraham Lincoln, reflecting the governmental philosophy of Thomas Hobbs, determined that the southern states could not secede and the "indivisible" term became the norm when speaking about the republic. Jefferson's view of multiple aligned republics being the future political unit disappeared.  The formation of the French Republic, the first modern large modern state republic, looking to the individual as the political unit set the example.

No one comments on the mutually exclusive concepts of republican government as laid out by Jefferson and the one by Lincoln (following the Hobbs model), and yet the significance and effects of this clash on our lives is long standing and enormous. The two approaches are incompatible, as Livingstone states.

How does this lead to a loss of control of our government?

At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the House of Representatives elected one Representative for every 30,000 people.  But in 1911 the number of Representatives was capped at 435.  Now, there is one Representative for every 720,000 people.  If this ratio were applied to the original 13 states, the House would be composed of 5 members, and 8 states would have no representatives at all. On the other hand, to keep the same 30,000 to 1 ratio today, the House would have 10,500 members.

Until 1914 the Legislature of each state selected and voted on the Senators to serve in the Washington, D. C. national Senate. Subsequently, our "elected" Senators are selected by direct voting, which no longer is guaranteed to reflect the political stance of their subject state, but by their ability to be attractive to the voters, which is directly affected by the amount of money they can negotiate for from very rich and opinionated "donors."  Those are who your Senators see as deserving of allegiance, not the voters' political and personal wants and desires., regardless of what the political ads or speeches say!

 The republican view of governmental responsiveness to citizens as well as to the rule of law has been lost.

Is it any surprise that our "elected" officials and bureaucrats that have never met more voters than they have bureaucrats do not have any instinct... any conscience...

to suggest that they owe any "allegiance," "care," or "oath of office" obligation to those citizens in the rest of the country?  Is it any surprise that many of them see "us" as the enemy?

Distance does NOT make the heart or the allegiance grow fonder, and almost inevitably leads to disrespect and betrayal!

We shoot ourselves by giving up on the study and discussion of History

 When was the last time that you felt that your government was being responsive to you, your values, your needs?  When was the last time that you felt that the government was there, in the words of the old half-joke, to help you?  When was the last time that you trusted the government to do the right thing?

If you are like most of the people I know, on all sides of the political spectrum, the answer is, "never!"

For a long time I have searched for a true answer for why this seems to be true.  Some have blamed ideology.  Others point to the need for term limits.  But these answers seem hollow and superficial.  Would changing those things change our attitude about today's United States of America Federal Government?  I suspect not.  So, my search has been ongoing, fitfully, for some time, since it seems that if one cannot define and truly identify the source of and reason for a problem, there is no hope at all for "fixing" it...assuming that it can be fixed.  And suddenly a whole new area of study and possible answer to my ongoing questions came to my attention.

In November of 2013, one Professor Donald Livingston, Professor Emeritus at Emory University, gave a speech at the University of Virginia on Republicanism (the government form, not the political ideology), David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln.  That speech was broadcast on C-SPAN.  Now, most of us have had ideas come to us suddenly and the proverbial light bulb goes off in your brain.  But...this speech had flashbulbs of incredible brilliance going off continually for an hour of rapt listening...and nodding ascent.  Never before had I even considered the effect of our form of government on the current status of the country.

I had been taught that our government was not a pure democracy but a Republic.  But the difference between a pure democracy and a republic was never, at least in my case, a matter of intense or critical study.  Nor was there ever a study of the advantages and limitations of a republican form of government.

What an error in our educational content.  But, perfectly understandable.  Why?  To answer that question completely requires the reading and study of commentaries on the subject by David Hume and Thomas Jefferson.  Or...for the equivalent of a Cliff Notes summary you might want to watch Prof. Livingston's speech on C-SPAN (  http://www.c-span.org/video/?316075-1/ThomasJeffers   ) which would reduce what otherwise would take months of study to about an hour of video.  But I will share the substance of what stuck with me from watching and listening to Professor Livingston...and I am confident that substance will get your attention and initiate thought and debate.

The general view of republican governance was one where size mattered, if you were going to have representative rule.  If you get too big, you lose representative responsiveness.  Jefferson's vision was one of additional republics being formed as both population and area grew, maintaining the people's control of government.  The republics would then band together in a Commonwealth for cooperative defense and trade.  Up until the Civil War, succession was often discussed and seen as a legitimate evolving action for growth.  It wasn't until Abraham Lincoln reflecting the governmental philosophy of Thomas Hobbs, determined, by force, that the southern states could not secede, and the "indivisible" term became the norm when speaking about the republic. Jefferson's view of the various republics being the political unit, to one where people became the political unit and control was to be centralized.  The French Revolution resulted in the formation of the French Republic, the first modern large modern state republic, looking to the individual as the political unit.

No one comments on the mutually exclusive concepts of republican government as laid out by Jefferson and then by Lincoln (following the Hobbs model), and yet the significance and effects of this clash on our lives is long standing and enormous. The two approaches are incompatible, as Livingstone states.

All of this is interesting on its own, but you might ask how this translates to the perception that we have lost control of our government...and it is a good question.

At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the House of Representatives elected one Representative for every 30,000 people.  But in 1911 the number of Representatives was capped at 435.  The result is that today there is one Representative for every 720,000 people.  If this ratio were applied to the original 13 states, the House would be composed of 5 members, and 8 states would have no representatives at all. On the other hand, to keep the same 30,000 to 1 ratio today, the House would have 10,500 members.  And the Supreme Court now is the decider of what the Constitution says.  This means that we have lost the republican view of governmental responsiveness as well as the rule of law.

Additionally, consider that the number of votes necessary to enact laws and authorize spending, all concentrated in Washington, D.C., is 268, and if you limit that to a quorum minimum, the number drops to 135.  This level of representation has resulted in a national debt of over 17 Trillion Dollars, and total unfunded liabilities variously estimated to be anywhere from $220 Trillion to $238 Trillion.  This is the burdon that our government has placed on our descendants.  To give you some prospective, in 2011 the Gross Domestic Product of all of the countries in the entire world amounted to $72 Trillion.

Now you start to see the source for the assertion that we no longer control our government.

David Hume wrote on how to solve the problem of size and save the responsiveness of government in a large republic.  Both he and Jefferson realized the greatest danger to the existence of a republic was corruption; the danger of a group of representatives to make decisions for their own purposes and aims. The answer was to divide America into 100 republics, not states, and move the House of Representatives out of Washington to each republic capitol, with each republic having 100 Representatives ( getting us back close to one representative for every 30,000 citizens).  The Senate would pass a bill, and then it would send that bill to each Republic for ratification.

This greatly reduces the likelihood of corruption, as the cost and logistics of lobbying 10,000 Representatives in 100 different locations would be at best, problematic and at worst, impossible.  There would also be the benefit of Representatives living and being constantly available to their constituents countering with "their" wishes at home, rather than reaching out electronically to "representatives" enjoying their comforting isolation and support from the "deep state" in our nation's Capitol.

With such a process, the Senate would be less inclined to introduce bills with "earmarks" and "pork" projects that were clearly not beneficial to all, as there would be greatly reduced chance of passage by the House of Representatives.  And those bills which have merit, but not on the gigantic scale of the Commonwealth, could and would be adopted by those republics individually as they saw the smaller scale need.

Of course, the best operation of the republican form of governance is still the small republic.  The analogy presented by Professor Livingston seemed most apt, even if not absolutely correct from a medical viewpoint: when a cell grows beyond a certain size, it divides...when it does not it is a cancer.

This is why our government no longer serves us; why it may still be "of the people", and "for the people", but is no longer "by the people."  Now I can begin to study and ponder on what the solution may be, including those as presented by the application of David Hume's "Large republic" concept.  But is seems clear that the status quo has nothing to offer.