Tonight we will be discussing Amendment XVII, Abolishing State Representation in the United States Congress
To understand the 17th Amendment, we need to go back in history to understand how our political system was originally set up. The Founding Fathers included a number of checks and balances during the creation of the federal government in the hopes of creating enough safeguards to protect the people from an ever expansive, tyrannical central government. The separation of powers between the branches of government was an integral part of these checks and balances. However, not all of the checks and balances put in place were obvious, nor are all of the checks and balances taught to us during our school years.
The dynamics of the federal government were set up to prevent any part of government from having access to too much power. Too much power in any one part of the system could be dangerous, and this included too much power in the hands of the people.
The people, just like the government, were not fully trusted. To prevent the danger of too much power residing in any part of government, power needed to be divided as much as possible so as to keep it under control. Too much power in the hands of anybody has the potential of being a dangerous proposition - and that includes in the hands of the people.
This nation is not a democracy. All of the voting power was not given to the people. Even the voting power was divided so as to ensure the republic was protected from the mob-rule mentality of democracy.
The vote of the people, or the people’s full and unquestioned voice in government, was, and still is, manifested in the U.S. House of Representatives. Then, and now, the representatives were voted into office directly by the people. Each representative represents a district. The members of the United States Senate were not voted in directly by the people. The U.S. Senators did not enter office as a result of a direct vote by the people during the first century’s existence of the federal government. The U.S. Senators were voted in by an indirect vote of the people.
The Senators were appointed by the State legislatures. The State legislators are voted into office by the people of the State. Therefore, during the early years of this nation, the Senators attained office by an indirect vote of the people through their State legislatures.
The people are represented by the States, and the State’s interests needed to be represented in the U.S. Congress. The States had that representation through the Senate by being able to appoint their Senators.
Since they were appointed by the State legislatures, the Senators looked at the political atmosphere in a different manner than the members of the House of Representatives. Since the members of the House of Representatives are directly voted into office by the people, their concerns are more in line with the immediate concerns of the people, no matter how whimsical those concerns may be.
The Senate functioned in a very different manner because when the Senators were appointed they were expected to abide by the wishes of the State legislatures. The Senators were expected to be representative of what was best for their States; State’s Rights, State Sovereignty, protecting the States not only from a foreign enemy, but from a domestic enemy, should the federal government become the potential tyranny that the Founding Fathers, and especially the Anti-federalists, feared a central government could become.
Remember, the federal government exists because the States let it. The powers derived by the federal government were granted to it by the States. The federal government is not supposed to be able to do much of anything without the permission of the several States. The Senate was the representation of the States so that the States could ensure the federal government remained within its authorities.
The States having representation in the federal government through the U.S. Senate is also another way that checks and balances were applied to the system. The House of Representatives represented The People, and the Senate represented The States. Through this arrangement, it gave The People the ability to check The States, and The States the ability to check The People, and together they checked The Executive. The dynamics of our government through this arrangement was a built in check and balance.
The States could not get too far without The People approving of it. The People could not get much done without The States agreeing with what they were trying to do. The Executive Branch could get little done without both The People and The States approving of it. However, if the President did not like what The People and The States were trying to accomplish, he could veto the bill. However, if The People and The States felt the legislation was important enough, they could override that veto with 2/3 of a vote in both Houses. That is how the government is supposed to work.
Looking at it in another way, a bill would be approved by both the People and the States before it went to the President to become law. This gave the executive and both parts of the legislative branch the opportunity to approve or disapprove potential laws.
In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment changed all that. The amendment removed the States’ representation in the U.S. Government. The Seventeenth Amendment changed the appointment of the Senators from that of the State legislatures to that of the vote of the people.
The Seventeenth Amendment also provides for appointments should a seat be left vacant for any reason. The governors of the States, should the legislatures allow such, may make temporary appointments until a special election takes place. The State legislatures may change these rules as they deem necessary, such as requiring an immediate special election instead of allowing the governor to temporarily appoint a replacement. This leaves most of the power regarding filling vacancies in the hands of the State legislatures.
Massachusetts of recent decades is a great example of the legislature changing the rules. Originally, their rule was that if there was a vacancy in the U.S. Senate, the governor could appoint the new Senator to complete that term of office. When Mitt Romney, who was a Republican, was governor, the Democrat dominated legislature feared a Republican appointment should one of the Massachusetts Senators die, so they changed the rule to require an immediate special election, fully confident the people would put another Democrat into office should one of the seats be vacated. When Ted Kennedy passed away, since the State of Massachusetts had a Democrat governor, the Democrat-led legislature hurriedly changed the rule to enable the governor to appoint the new Senator, just in case the people could not be trusted.
The whole thing was kind of underhanded, but it was also all within the allowances of the U.S. Constitution.
In the end, the real damage caused by the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment was that State representation in the Congress was removed. Senators, after the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, would be voted into office by the vote of the people, making the U.S. Senate more like the House of Representatives, eliminating a very important check and balance, and making the United States more like a democracy and less like the Republic the founders originally intended.
The people wanted the government to be more like a democracy, and they got it with the Seventeenth Amendment.
Karl Marx once stated that “Democracy is the road to socialism.”
Progressivism was on the rise in the United States during those early years of the 20th Century, and the statists knew that one of their main obstacles was the voice of the States. The Seventeenth Amendment was one of the vehicles the statists used to begin the process of silencing the States, with the ultimate goal of making them irrelevant in regards to the running of the federal government.
The statists did not reveal their true intentions. If they had proclaimed that they desired the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment so that they could proceed in their quest to change the United States into a socialist system, the people would have rejected it. Instead, they used a populist argument. “It is for the will of the people. You deserve a Senate voted into office by the democratic will of the people. If you directly vote for the Senators, they will be more apt to act in line with the will of the people. After all, the States are corrupt, and they can’t be trusted. You people, in the interest of democracy, deserve to be able to vote for the Senators yourselves.”
That was essentially the argument.
Sound familiar?
As a result, the whole system was turned on its head. The entire dynamic of our government system changed.
Let’s think about the damage the Seventeenth Amendment caused for just a moment.
The Founding Fathers made the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate different for a reason.
If a United States President signs a treaty, before that treaty goes into force, it must be ratified by the U.S. Senate, which back then was the voice of the States. It was the founder’s way of making sure the States could ensure the President didn’t make treaties that were dangerous to State Sovereignty. However, now the Senate no longer represents the States, so now that safeguard is no longer in place. Senators that are more apt to defend an ideology, rather than their States, are in office now. So, the ratification of treaties has totally changed in a way that could place State Sovereignty in jeopardy. The States no longer have a voice in that part of the governing process anymore.
Another point in regards to the Senate ratifying treaties, is since the States are the final arbiters of the Constitution, the founders felt no worry about unconstitutional treaties because the final arbiters, the States, were the ratifiers. Now, since ideology takes precedence over States' Rights now in the Senate, we are faced by a number of draconian treaties. . . and there is nothing the States can do about it.
The appointment of judges, such as Supreme Court Justices, has also been altered by the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment. Imagine how different the hearings regarding the appointment of Supreme Court Justices would be if the Senators were appointed by the State legislatures?
Do you think it would be as easy for an activist judge to be appointed?
Do you think the nominations would be asked questions geared towards the Constitution, and protecting State Sovereignty?
The people were told that the States could no longer be trusted in their appointment of the Senators, and the States got lazy and didn’t wish to participate in that manner anymore. As a result, the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified, and look at the mess it has caused.
Let’s return to the concept of “dividing power” for a moment. The Founding Fathers divided the voting power. By the States appointing the Senators, it divided the people’s voting power.
During the early years of the this nation the State legislatures also appointed the electors for president.
The People only directly voted into office the representatives of the U.S. House of Representatives.
This division of voting power was put into place because the Founding Fathers knew that should the people be fooled while they completely controlled the vote, a tyranny could ensure that it was voted into the three primary parts of government: the executive, the House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate. Once that tyranny had control of those three parts of government, the judicial branch would be sure to follow.
The founders knew that should the uninformed electorate vote in a tyranny, while caught up in some kind of cult of personality, it would spell the beginning of the end of the United States as we know it.
The Founding Fathers knew that democracy of that kind would destroy the system, so they divided the power of the vote. The voting power was divided so as to protect us from the excesses of democracy.
Looking back on 2006 and 2008, we see an example of exactly what the Founding Fathers warned us about. A single ideology, one that is hostile towards the U.S. Constitution, and hostile to the American System, fooled the people, and took control of some of the most vital parts of government. The reason by the statists for the Seventeenth Amendment was fulfilled.
The Seventeenth Amendment, combined with the creation of the Federal Reserve, and the implementation of an income tax, was all a part of a scheme to change the American System into a model of socialism through the guise of democracy.
We are not a democracy, and we were never meant to be a democracy. The Seventeenth Amendment moved us in that direction. The Founding Fathers continuously spoke out against the dangers of democracy. They knew that democracies lead to mob-rule. As much as the government couldn’t be trusted with too much power, neither could the voting public.
The Constitution is filled with checks and balances. Yet, the people of that time period were fooled so easily by the statists.
Thomas Jefferson said, “Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those that are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
John Adams said, “While it lasts, Democracy becomes more bloody than either an aristocracy or a monarchy. Democracy never lasts long; it soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
Thomas Jefferson said, “A democracy is nothing more than mob-rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.”
James Bovard said, “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”
A friend of mine adds that a republic is “two wolves and a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.”
Benjamin Franklin, after asked what the founders created in the Constitutional Convention, replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
With freedom comes responsibility. It is up to us to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment