Should a people blindly trust their government? I worry that as long as
Democrats control the Congress and the Presidency the answer is yes.
Apparently even disagreeing with Democrats is considered unpatriotic:
Despite
all logic, the many calls and efforts for the federal government to
take over as much of the private sector as possible seem to be met with
little resistance. Thankfully there is growing conservative resistance
to federal takeover, a takeover which many Americans would call a
Marxist or Socialist movement. This resistance includes grassroots
Republicans, Democrats and others alike, all in the name of the Tenth
Amendment. This "second revolution" as some call it has spread even to state legislatures and governors,
evidenced by their publicly reclaiming the constitutionally recognized
sovereignty of their states, also citing the 10th Amendment to the
constitution.
But one problem with this common sense revolution
is that all the calls for change and returning the government to its
people are largely symbolic. Even the fairly recent sovereignty
resolutions of 36 states had no legal power. The rules of the political
game are unchanged. The Tenth Amendment is actually part of our
constitution, yet has been ignored for decades. And why shouldn't it be
ignored, what incentive have our elected representatives to honor it?
If an entire amendment to that venerable document can be utterly
disregarded and done so with the blessing of tens of millions of voters
who want the government to take care of them, how are we to trust any
future claims by those representatives that they will turn away from an
obviously politically lucrative status quo?
In
the modern American tradition we should expect calls for new
legislation to compel the Congress to recognize and honor the 10th
Amendment for each new law they make. That is, after all, the result of
this leftist training we have endured for so long: let the government
regulate the problem away - though rarely does such a thing ever
actually happen. But a problem arises here - why should a law be
required to force Congress to do what the constitution already says?
They have ignored it for so long, and we the people (and the states)
have allowed Congress to ignore that amendment for so long what
possible reason is there to believe anything will change with a wave of
public pressure, which is no doubt sincere but likely temporary?
Let
me propose an alternate approach. Rather than find new laws to
accomplish the desired goal, why not repeal some? Or better yet, start
with only one.
The men who invented the United States were well
aware of the slow, creeping tyranny of government. They knew that
without a balance between the people, their representatives, and
federal power capable of doing what ever the representatives wanted,
despite any input from the people, federal power would usurp anything
it could.
James Madison, widely considered the author of
Federalist No. 63, describes exactly why the Senate was necessary. In
this paper the writer does not discuss only the importance of a
bicameral Congress, with the powers of making law divided into two
separate houses. Here, Madison also describes the vital importance of
tempering the passions of the people, who can be lied to and tricked
into supporting legislation they themselves would later regret. Madison
says:
Thus far I have considered the circumstances
which point out the necessity of a well-constructed Senate only as they
relate to the representatives of the people. To a people as little
blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address,
I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes
necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors
and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought,
in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments,
ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are
particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by
some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the
artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures
which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and
condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the
interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in
order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated
by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can
regain their authority over the public mind?
I
am not unaware of the circumstances which distinguish the American from
other popular governments, as well ancient as modern; and which render
extreme circumspection necessary, in reasoning from the one case to the
other. But after allowing due weight to this consideration, it may
still be maintained, that there are many points of similitude which
render these examples not unworthy of our attention. Many of the
defects, as we have seen, which can only be supplied by a senatorial
institution, are common to a numerous assembly frequently elected by
the people, and to the people themselves. There are others peculiar to
the former, which require the control of such an institution. The
people can never wilfully betray their own interests; but they may
possibly be betrayed by the representatives of the people; and the
danger will be evidently greater where the whole legislative trust is
lodged in the hands of one body of men, than where the concurrence of
separate and dissimilar bodies is required in every public act.
And
here, after indicating ancient governments knew well the importance of
representative government rather than direct democracy, Madison warns
that the failures of the ancient representative governments were linked
to the fact that the very officers elected to represent the people in
government transcended their representing roles, and essentially cut
off connections with the people in order to form an aristocracy for
themselves.
From these facts, to which many others
might be added, it is clear that the principle of representation was
neither unknown to the ancients nor wholly overlooked in their
political constitutions. The true distinction between these and the
American governments, lies IN THE TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE PEOPLE, IN
THEIR COLLECTIVE CAPACITY, from any share in the LATTER, and not in the
TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE from the
administration of the FORMER.
How true: that the
governed "may possibly be betrayed by the representatives of the
people" and that allowing a governing body comprising elected
representatives could easily devolve into "the total exclusion of the
people". Madison was warning Americans about the dangers of career politicians.
What Madison is talking about here is the necessity of having a Senate
comprising two members of each state, chosen by the legislatures there
of. Originally, in the American Constitution, the Senate was
accountable to the states, not to the people, as was the House of
Representatives. And being accountable to the states made the Senate
less susceptible to the whims of fickle and flamboyant popular
movements, because the Senate's constituents were their states'
legislators. But with the ratification of the 17th Amendment this
changed: now the Senate would be just as dependent on placating and
pandering to the people as was the House, until they could assume so
much authority they could pretend any disagreement between Senators and
a citizen automatically meant the citizen "didn't understand" the
situation.
The benefits of having a cool headed Senate ready to
slow down the heat of public sentiment and allow reason to dominate any
given situation has long been lost. With the 1913 amendment in place
the states lost their representation in the federal government. Now any
special interest, any lobbyist or popular and temporary wave of fury
could influence both houses of Congress equally. And when so many
people want the government to take control of an issue there is now no
one left to protect the states' rights against federal usurpation.
Today we are seeing the results of this tragedy. A federal government
which took control of public education and forced us into Social
Security has now taken over banking and largely the automotive
industry. And taking over our health care is just around the corner.
As big a deal as it is to ignore the 10th Amendment, sadly this is a symptom of a much larger problem. Until the balance of power is restored by repealing the 17th Amendment
I fear there will be no stopping the effort to turn the United States
into a socialist nation in which we all have so many rights and
entitlements that we the people can no longer do anything. In the
American government, the ratification of the 17th Amendment spelled the
death of the 10th Amendment. Before 1913 Senators responsible to their
respective states respected and protected the 10th Amendment, and all
the implications that go with it. Without this dynamic of the balance
of power federalism is doomed, as is the freedom of the people.