"The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government."
In its original form, these states were granted all powers not explicitly listed therein through the 'Enumerated Powers' clause found in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Bill of Rights.
The three branch structure was crafted to prevent tyranny and allow the states to be free from excessive governmental power. It did this by providing the checks and balances today known as the hallmark of this American experiment of self-governance.
But, something has gone seriously wrong with government.
We only have to look at current approval ratings to see that. Even though many people do not pay attention to the day to day operations of our elected officials in Washington, their actions - and even their lack of action - has caused more pain and suffering in the past century than the founders could ever imagine.
Why did they not see this current fracturing of the country? We're they really not so gifted in their deliberations?
I would venture that they were indeed gifted and forthright in what they perceived as the best ways and then created structure of the three branches. But changes were made. Changes that at the time seemed reasonable but were really a poison pill that would eventually lead to the problems we face today.
You might wonder the purpose of the two houses of congress and what that framework was intended to accomplish.
If so, please consider the following: the framers knew that the parliamentary system used in the British system was flawed so they set about to construct a better system. When I studied this aspect in elementary school (yes, it was taught as a part of the core knowledge required of all citizens way back then), I wondered why were two houses needed that were essentially the same?
Indeed, they are the same today, but the founders and others who influenced the debate knew that to simply copy the British system would also lead to internal corruption, power grabs, backroom deals and seats granted based on who you knew or who you bought off. The landed gentry were often not allowed into the house of Lords in Parliament because they were considered beneath the ability 'to go along to get along' or that they be a loose cannon, thus ruining the proceedings with legislation that did not benefit those in power.
The founding fathers proposed a slight twist. Their logic in the creation of the Senate and its selection process was indeed sterling. Sadly, we no longer have that logic in control of government and can see the disastrous results in the perpetual gridlock found in Washington today. Many states also suffer this malady and the cause can be found to be a close parallel to the federal condition.
The House of Representatives and the Senate were both created to eliminate the problems found in the British system by having representatives chosen by the people of each region in the state. A popularity contest if you will. Nothing wrong with that because we need to have someone who is from our area to be able to speak with directly and to know that they face the same issues we do, be it local flooding or a group of people or businesses that might dominate the area by graft or force.
The Senate on the other hand was intended to be a more deliberative body and as such, needed to be insulated from the more local issues. They could take time to see and then debate how those effected in the states and if there was a need for the federal government to intervene in those local issues. If the Senate approved a measure from the house of representatives that did rise to the level of national importance, then the logic went, that the federal government should act to correct the problem. The Senate was described as deliberative body and as such the members served as statesmen (where the term gained it's current meaning) being our ambassadors to the Federal government.
The Senators were to be selected in a unique way - by selection of each state's legislature through whatever way the state decided to use. Many had settled on a popular vote or use of the same number of votes in the statehouse as found in the House of Representatives or state's legislature could form a super-committee of sorts to select their Senators.
These local legislatures were beholden to the people of the state in this regard; if I or my neighbor were selected to state office, we would really feel the pain if we chose to pass laws against the wishes of our constituents (usually family and friends as was so often the case in many states in colonial times and cans till be true today). By serving in that capacity, we would also have the opportunity to meet and work with other leaders from other regions of our state. In doing so, we would learn very quickly who were the doers and who were the slackers.
(One other change that was made at the same time was to reduce the influence of landholders by lessening their vote. They had a larger representation compared to the urban centers by a 200 to 1 margin.
Though that may not seem fair, but where is the fairness in having property owners pay for social programs that have little or no benefit to them? These landowners are often farmers and others who have put long hours into owning these large areas of land. Should their property be used as collateral for well-intended but oftentimes misdirected spending? No, indeed. This goes against all that we know to be the best use of our God given rights including the right to keep the fruits of our labors without others taking as they wish.)
If after having been voted into office, we were then also to pick two people to represent the state in Washington, we would definitely incur the wrath of our neighbors - who we often worked and worshiped with - if our selection was not a good choice. We would naturally be lobbied by those same people to select a better if not the best person to represent the state.
This was seen by many as a nod to the aristocracy in many European capitals but was instead a carefully crafted safety valve to keep government from running roughshod over the states. By letting me and my neighbors choose from the best of the best (knowing that I had worked alongside them in either local issues or even in state office) the people would be assured that the federal government would not be allowed to overreach or step into states and demand things be done a specific way.
All the states that sent representatives to the continental congress knew that this was a compromise but one that should and could preserve states rights for the foreseeable future. As proof of the logic used, and to make sure that the federal beast they had created stayed on it's leash, several states would not sign onto the new document unless and until the Bill of Rights were added. By including them as amendments, the founders sought and found a real, lasting compromise on the issue. In doing so, they insured that the fledgling American Dream would become reality.
All of this changed when several in power saw a way to increase their power and the money that flows through Washington DC by a change to the Constitution in the form of the 17th Amendment.
This (not so small) change caused a short circuit in the checks and balances long regarded as essential to self-governence.
One may ask as I did back in grade school, why are representatives elected to two year terms and Senators to six? The reasoning was to insulate the Senate from rash popular legislation. We have all seen the way that a popular ideal can spread but be quickly replaced by the next greatest all-improved, hippest, baddest, trend that can capture the public's fancy (Anyone want to buy a hardly worn leisure suit?).
The long term effect of the 17th amendment has been to undermine the state's role in government and replace it with this sort of "rush to produce (something / anything)" to make it appear that progress is being made. In looking back at the way all of this has played out, it can be seen that the decision to amend the constitution was really not well thought out after all. Through the years, the very things that the change sought to eliminate (a straw man argument to be kind) are the very things the change and resultant hasty decisions that it produced have caused to increase. This proves that there are unintended consequences to all things, most certainly when the changes are rushed into place with little or no regard other than "Well, it sounds good".
In their appeal to the populist sentiment of the times, the proponents said that the proposal they sought to establish as the 17th Amendment would reduce corruption and make it so that the deadlock they experienced in the Senate would be eliminated.
However, these were and are still straw man arguments. A review of the corruption charges shows that only 10 elections in the 100 or so years before were even brought up to a level of scrutiny and that required they be overturned.
The gridlock issue? We only have to look at the current situation in Washington to see that changing the selection by the state's legislatures to the people by popular vote has had little or no effect whatsoever.
Instead the power that was held by state legislatures has been replaced by special interest groups; the voice of the people of each state is now silenced. The special interest groups - from the AARP and ARA to the EPA and HSA plus all the other alphabet soup groups - have more control over our lives than our elected representative's decisions ever could.
Another unintended consequence was the reduction of a vast number of state and regional political parties into the current two party rule we live under today. Popular ideas spring up all the time 120 years ago. Today they are quashed because of the lack of national support for the ideas these regional groups have to offer. The current Democratic and Republican parties both had their roots in small regional factions. Many claimed that these regional groups were the source of the gridlock complaint at the turn of the last century. Others in government saw that the only way for them to gain more power over the people and thus their money was to be able to consolidate - and then eliminate - all of these smaller groups.
I know many feel that there is little to no difference between the "donkey" and the "elephant" political groups. The grip on power once obtained is not easily removed. After they've experienced the perks provided to elected officials, what person in their right mind would want to release the hold on power - and the purse strings - found in Washington?
These are not small issues and were thought out and fully debated many years ago in a small hall in Philadelphia. The founders knew both maxims "Power corrupts" and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". They further knew that their system of governance by the people will only stand so long as free men (and women) are able and willing to take time out from their lives and serve... but then return to their lives when service is done. The "citizen statesman" was an idea that has been lost but can still be reclaimed.
Washington, the man, knew and lived out these ideals by refusing to be elected President for life.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
"Delay is preferable to error."
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad
government results from too much government. "
- Thomas Jefferson
That the founders and authors knew of the problems inherent with many forms of governance is without question. Yet many think that our founding document is an anachronism best relegated to the ash-heap of history. Yes, Washington stated plainly that the document should not be frozen in amber - it is a living breathing constitution that we as free people can change if and when the need arises.
However the need for change can and must not be subject to the whim and folly of those who wish to further their personal agendas. It must be deliberated and molded to produce a workable end result that will address the problems in our modern age and still be suitable to serve those generations to follow.
If at that point in time our progeny wish to modify and alter it, fine. That is what the founders hoped would occur. But to discard the whole system - as many in the halls of government wish - will not serve anyone except them.
To replace portions or add amendments is not something without merit.
Some changes are at odds with the wishes and desires of the majority of men and women who will live work and die under it's foundation of law. Elimination of slavery, making sure that all citizens are allowed to vote, and the income tax were all addition to our legal system by the amendment process. These changes show that the process does work.
The issue of prohibition and it's subsequent repeal show that changes that run contrary to the wishes of the people can also be discarded. This is as planned by the founders.
The 17th amendment however shows that even with due diligence and deliberation the best of intentions can have serious unintended consequences.
It's time to repeal this ill suited amendment as was done with prohibition and get the "power of the people" rooted out of Washington DC and back to our neighborhoods. It is those areas that now live under the ever increasing shadow of a growing beast that will eventually take all they (we) have and still not be satisfied.
