Mark West
The voiceless states
By Mark West
"I certainly trust the people of Illinois to choose who they want to represent them in the U. S. Senate. That is the very basis of our democracy." Democrat Barack Obama, Illinois Senate candidate, expressed this sentiment a few days ago when asked about repealing the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Seventeenth Amendment altered the Constitution by allowing Senators to be elected by popular vote as opposed to a vote of the State Legislatures. Obama's statement belies a deeper lack of understanding that is shared by many Americans in regard to exactly what form of government our nation was designed to be by the Framers of the Constitution.
Taking Obama's statement we see two serious misconceptions about our nation's Founding Documents. Misconception number one, United States Senators represent the people. I know that it will surprise some of you to learn that national Senators don't represent the people. By design, Senators were to represent the states, while Representatives were to represent the people, thus causing a conflicting, balance of power that would protect the nation from the extremes of bureaucratic or mob dominance.
Our Founding Fathers framed the Constitution containing the following in regard to the Senate: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote." The original intent for the Senate was to serve as a representative for the state's interests in Congress, not the people's interests. Another governing body was designed for the people's interests: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." Congress was to be composed of the balanced voice of the states through the Senate; and the people of the states through the House of Representatives. Such thinking was given a name, that name was Federalism. Our nation was framed to be a Democratic Constitutional Republic. In this system, the law was the Constitution; the method of governing was as a Republic; and the deciding voice would be democratic elections. Our Founding Fathers deeply understood the dangers of rule by the few, oligarchy; and rule by the many, democracy; and wisely developed a system that would balance these diverging voices of the nation.
This leads us to misconception number two, that our nation is a democracy. Wrong, our nation was founded and framed to be a Democratic Constitutional Republic. What is the difference? In a Democracy, the rule of the majority always trumps the rule of the minority...always. If majority rule had reigned in Abraham Lincoln's day, slavery would still exist. As a Democratic Constitutional Republic, we are bound by laws that protect the rights of the minority from the whims of the powerful majority. I'm sure that Obama, and most Americans, believe it is essential to protect the rights of minorities from evisceration at the hands of a majority expressing its "democratic" and oppressive voice.
What changed that made Obama's view of government viable? Ratified in 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment declared, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote." The States were effectively silenced in national policy! Interestingly, the system designed to protect the voice of the States, had been manipulated to take that voice away. Proponents of the Seventeenth Amendment sold it to the American people as a law that would end the gridlock that often occurred in State Legislatures that would lead to the States, not the people, going unrepresented in national policy; and also stem the tide of corruption by special interests on Senate candidates.
Dealing with the primary reason for needing such a change of law, we must realize that the gridlock in the State Legislatures was due to the fact that a majority, rather than a plurality was required to elect a Senator. An amendment that would have allowed for a plurality to elect and for a Governor's vote to serve as the tie breaker would have dealt positively with the problem rather than changing the law altogether, altering our government structure.
Hopefully, we all realize that the second problem has never been fixed. Special interests influence every Senatorial campaign and will continue to do so unless laws prohibit such from occurring. With Senate campaigns now required statewide appeal, the finances are necessary for a good campaign for the office. State's have become a part of the "special interests" problem because they now have to influence the Senator rather than being the one represented by the Senator.
What the Seventeenth Amendment has accomplished is exactly what the proponents of it desired for it to accomplish. Altering our government to destroy the balance of powers in order to allow mob rule to reign. The ages of history should serve us as a stark and real reminder of how dangerous mob rule is. Balance is essential to proper government, especially in a Republic. Yet we cannot deny the erosion that had been wreaked on the system through the party primary elections which essentially served as a means of the people telling the States whom should be elected as Senators.
"The balance is utterly destroyed when the senators are directly elected because the state government as such no longer plays any role in the deliberations at the federal level," said Alan Keyes on the issue. Keyes continued, "there has been a steady deleterious erosion of the sovereign role of the states." Keyes understands that our Founding Fathers intended that the States have a say in the operation of the national government, otherwise, there really exists no need for state governments other than meaningless lower level bureaucracy.
The True America that I am defending today is an America of balance. Balance between the federal and state governments, between the people and the states they reside in, between the majority and the minority, between the popular and the unpopular. Since the Seventeenth Amendment, we have become the United, Voiceless, States of America. Too much focus on centralizing power in the federal government through majority (mob) rule will lead America down a road of rulership by popular opinion rather than of the law of the land.
A question must be asked of those who support the Seventeenth Amendment: "Why don't you want the states to have a say in how the federal government operates?" I advise you to contact you State Representative, State Senator, Governor, U. S. Congressman and U. S. Senator and find out whether they support the Seventeenth Amendment or not. If they will admit to supporting the Seventeenth Amendment, don't be afraid to pop the question and see what they have to say.
© Mark West
"I certainly trust the people of Illinois to choose who they want to represent them in the U. S. Senate. That is the very basis of our democracy." Democrat Barack Obama, Illinois Senate candidate, expressed this sentiment a few days ago when asked about repealing the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Seventeenth Amendment altered the Constitution by allowing Senators to be elected by popular vote as opposed to a vote of the State Legislatures. Obama's statement belies a deeper lack of understanding that is shared by many Americans in regard to exactly what form of government our nation was designed to be by the Framers of the Constitution.
Taking Obama's statement we see two serious misconceptions about our nation's Founding Documents. Misconception number one, United States Senators represent the people. I know that it will surprise some of you to learn that national Senators don't represent the people. By design, Senators were to represent the states, while Representatives were to represent the people, thus causing a conflicting, balance of power that would protect the nation from the extremes of bureaucratic or mob dominance.
Our Founding Fathers framed the Constitution containing the following in regard to the Senate: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote." The original intent for the Senate was to serve as a representative for the state's interests in Congress, not the people's interests. Another governing body was designed for the people's interests: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." Congress was to be composed of the balanced voice of the states through the Senate; and the people of the states through the House of Representatives. Such thinking was given a name, that name was Federalism. Our nation was framed to be a Democratic Constitutional Republic. In this system, the law was the Constitution; the method of governing was as a Republic; and the deciding voice would be democratic elections. Our Founding Fathers deeply understood the dangers of rule by the few, oligarchy; and rule by the many, democracy; and wisely developed a system that would balance these diverging voices of the nation.
This leads us to misconception number two, that our nation is a democracy. Wrong, our nation was founded and framed to be a Democratic Constitutional Republic. What is the difference? In a Democracy, the rule of the majority always trumps the rule of the minority...always. If majority rule had reigned in Abraham Lincoln's day, slavery would still exist. As a Democratic Constitutional Republic, we are bound by laws that protect the rights of the minority from the whims of the powerful majority. I'm sure that Obama, and most Americans, believe it is essential to protect the rights of minorities from evisceration at the hands of a majority expressing its "democratic" and oppressive voice.
What changed that made Obama's view of government viable? Ratified in 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment declared, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote." The States were effectively silenced in national policy! Interestingly, the system designed to protect the voice of the States, had been manipulated to take that voice away. Proponents of the Seventeenth Amendment sold it to the American people as a law that would end the gridlock that often occurred in State Legislatures that would lead to the States, not the people, going unrepresented in national policy; and also stem the tide of corruption by special interests on Senate candidates.
Dealing with the primary reason for needing such a change of law, we must realize that the gridlock in the State Legislatures was due to the fact that a majority, rather than a plurality was required to elect a Senator. An amendment that would have allowed for a plurality to elect and for a Governor's vote to serve as the tie breaker would have dealt positively with the problem rather than changing the law altogether, altering our government structure.
Hopefully, we all realize that the second problem has never been fixed. Special interests influence every Senatorial campaign and will continue to do so unless laws prohibit such from occurring. With Senate campaigns now required statewide appeal, the finances are necessary for a good campaign for the office. State's have become a part of the "special interests" problem because they now have to influence the Senator rather than being the one represented by the Senator.
What the Seventeenth Amendment has accomplished is exactly what the proponents of it desired for it to accomplish. Altering our government to destroy the balance of powers in order to allow mob rule to reign. The ages of history should serve us as a stark and real reminder of how dangerous mob rule is. Balance is essential to proper government, especially in a Republic. Yet we cannot deny the erosion that had been wreaked on the system through the party primary elections which essentially served as a means of the people telling the States whom should be elected as Senators.
"The balance is utterly destroyed when the senators are directly elected because the state government as such no longer plays any role in the deliberations at the federal level," said Alan Keyes on the issue. Keyes continued, "there has been a steady deleterious erosion of the sovereign role of the states." Keyes understands that our Founding Fathers intended that the States have a say in the operation of the national government, otherwise, there really exists no need for state governments other than meaningless lower level bureaucracy.
The True America that I am defending today is an America of balance. Balance between the federal and state governments, between the people and the states they reside in, between the majority and the minority, between the popular and the unpopular. Since the Seventeenth Amendment, we have become the United, Voiceless, States of America. Too much focus on centralizing power in the federal government through majority (mob) rule will lead America down a road of rulership by popular opinion rather than of the law of the land.
A question must be asked of those who support the Seventeenth Amendment: "Why don't you want the states to have a say in how the federal government operates?" I advise you to contact you State Representative, State Senator, Governor, U. S. Congressman and U. S. Senator and find out whether they support the Seventeenth Amendment or not. If they will admit to supporting the Seventeenth Amendment, don't be afraid to pop the question and see what they have to say.
© Mark West
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
