Dakota Beacon

A few weeks ago I read a column in a local newspaper, which shall remain nameless here, penned by Lloyd Omdahl, wherein he rejoiced in the implementation of the 17th Amendment, which called for the direct election of senators, instead of their appointment by state legislatures.  He lauded this as a great “advancement” in our government.  He further opined that we might one day progress to the point where we could enjoy the direct election of presidents!  With regard to the latter, I can only say, where are you living now, Mr. Omdahl?  There is no better guarantee that North Dakota would be marginalized right out of political existence by such an “advancement”.  Readers of this publication are already well informed on the reason why less populated states must have the Electoral College to keep them in the game.  Without that, our population would not even be a flyspeck in the cosmos.  I don’t wish to dwell on the absurdity of calling for the direct election of our president, but the issue of the US Senate and other Constitutionally prescribed means of government do call for attention.

When the Founders of our nation took their seats in Philadelphia in 1789, it was a sober, intensely dedicated and patriotic gathering.  Many of these men had risked execution as “traitors” for their part in the Revolution, which had ended five or six years prior.  In the meantime the states and the Confederation had struggled mightily with the birthing pains of a new nation, experimenting with various forms of government to cope with previously un-experienced challenges – the frontier, the intrigues of foreign powers on our continent, war debt, lack of universal currency, foreign policy, trade – both inter-state and international.  Were we a new nation or 13 new nations?  What was our name?  Who had the right to form agreements, alliances and treaties?  These were among the many questions facing the Founders. 

But above them all loomed the great question, what would the relationship be among the states and with a national government?  Heretofore the states had existed each as a whole, seeing themselves as independent and with total responsibilities for all of the aspects of nationhood.  Now, facing threats which might cost them their recently won freedom, they feared losing it due to the weakness of their existing agreement, the Articles of Confederation.  So how to resolve the conflicts of nation-states which were jealous of their own independence and yet forge a strong union that could deal with the threats from without and strengthen the whole?  It was no small or easy task, and one that had never really been attempted on this scale before. 

The men who met in Philadelphia to resolve these issues each came with a different concept.  Some wanted no real change from the Confederation while others were thinking in terms of monarchy.  In between, dozens of ideas swirled.  The knottiest problem seemed to be how the states would relate to a national government and how the structure of that government could answer the concerns of each of the states.  The Constitution which emerged at the end of this strenuous exercise provided for the strict enumeration of federal powers, the citizenry unwilling to accept an overbearing or meddling central government. They had just fought a costly war to rid themselves of just this kind of thing.  Yet a weak central government could spell disaster in those dangerous times.  The British were hovering around the Great Lakes and Canada, not ready to let us go yet, the Spanish were down on the Mississippi Delta and Florida, the Indians were on our western frontier and our economy was unraveling, so that our relations with Europe were on edge. 

Clearly the citizens would be served by some entity acting for the whole.  The issue of the rights of the states to a large degree of self-determination and responsibility was brilliantly addressed through the bicameral legislature proposed.  The House of Representatives would represent the citizens as individuals, directly elected by them and directly answerable to them.  However, lest this federal government be overtaken by the most populous centers in New York, Virginia or Pennsylvania at the expense of the more remote, more sparsely populated but equally important regions and frontiers, the states themselves would assert their influence by means of the Senate.  The members of the Senate were to be appointed or elected by the legislatures of the states and answerable to them.  Obviously, the state legislatures must then answer to their constituents – the people in their states.  This created more of a liaison between the individual states and the federal government of which they were a part.  It was this which allowed the Constitution to go forward.  The fears of the states as to their liberty and their citizens’ interests were met and satisfied.  With this construction and the understanding that the states would not be threatened by an over-powerful central authority, the new Constitution was accepted by the final authority, the people.

If we take a look at this and how the principles would apply to our current political ills, we see the genius in the Constitution devised by these insightful, knowledgeable and reflective leaders.  Taking a look at the Legislative Branch’s structure alone, we have a system which is immediately responsive to the private citizen.  His Congressman must answer every two years for his performance and solicit the constituents for their support and renewal.  But the federal government would not overrun the states.  If we think of some of today’s issues we can see why this structure was necessary to national success.

Today we ask why the EPA can come into our state and declare that we must not raise any dust when we harvest our crops.  We have unfunded mandates like No Child Left Behind.  We now have Obamacare.  We have hundreds of federal programs, each with strings attached, busily grinding away at our rights and responsibilities.   Ask yourself if this would be the case if the state legislatures appointed the members of the Senate.  If the senators had to go home to South Carolina, Rhode Island, North Dakota, Idaho, etc., and explain their votes to the state governments, do you think they would support these evils?  But given the impetus of direct election and the desire to appear to be bringing home the bacon to Main Street or to the farm, the plight in which they place the state government is of little or less concern to them.  The Founders had a reason for not choosing direct election of both houses.  One house was to be a lightning rod for the individual citizen and the other a restraint against too much power in Washington. 

All we hear now is how corrupt Washington is, how we don’t trust “beltway” politicians.  We have more control as citizens over the men and women we send to our state legislatures than we do over our senators in Washington.  Then why should we celebrate this “improvement”? 

The 17th Amendment should be repealed.  It tore asunder the fabric of a strong, working Constitution and people who didn’t take the time or trouble to think about consequences or to study the document which guaranteed their liberty and prosperity, thought it “sounded good”.  But it is not the only abuse we’ve seen.  Every time our federal Congress undertakes a new program that is not called for by the carefully considered enumerated powers, we enable another evil to come in.  What are the issues that patriots decry today?  We hear calls for “term limits”, for one.  Why do people – especially Conservatives and Tea Party patriots call for this?  When you ask you will hear that it is because Congress wasn’t supposed to be a career, but a short-term service to the public, that they are in the pay – and  clutches - of lobbyists and special interests and don’t serve us anymore.

If you consider why this is, you will understand clearly that term limits, as proposed by these people, would be a terrible mistake and would not address the problem.  I have said it before, in these pages, that if you don’t like lobbyists standing hat-in-hand outside your Congressman’s door, will you like it better when the lame-duck Congressmen are standing, hat-in-hand outside the lobbyists’ doors?  Because that is where you will find them for the two or six years of their last term.  It will simply be musical chairs in Washington.  If you want “citizen legislators”, who, like Cincinnatus, will serve and then go home and take up the plough share, consider this: if Congress limited its activity to the powers allowed it by the Constitution, the diminished workload would enable these men and women to go home for six or eight months and still get done what they were intended to accomplish. 

If Congress felt we could get along without their telling parents how to feed and educate their children, if they felt that our automobile manufacturers could muddle through without fascist takeovers, if banks and mortgage lenders and holders were given to understand that they would not be bailed out if they are stupid, and for that matter, that the government would not interfere to tell them who they must make loans to, the workload would lighten considerably. 

What if Congress decided to follow the Constitution – what WOULD they be doing in Washington?  Among other things, they would protect our borders, they would administer immigration policies and laws in the interest of the United States of America, rather than in the interests of foreign nations, they – not the Federal Reserve Bank – would be in charge of our currency (like they used to be back when the US was solvent).  They would be deciding when, where and with whom we went to war, not the President on his own, or the UN.  They would have ample time for these abdicated responsibilities if they quit telling us what kind of light bulb to use and overseeing our children’s diets through school lunch, breakfast and dinner programs.  If they did not interfere with our health care they could turn their attention to the things they are mandated to do under our Constitution.  They, not the UN, would be deciding our foreign policy (and, for that matter the UN could get out of our INTERNAL policies as well). 

The next time a well-meaning patriot approaches you with a call for a “balanced budget” amendment, think about the root of the problem, not the band-aid they want to apply.  As written, the current configuration of the balanced budget amendment would compound the ills it purports to address.  It would strip Congress of more of its rights and responsibilities in favor of strengthening the Executive Branch.  Is this what you really want to achieve?  A more powerful Obama, or Bush or Clinton?  Will this restrain spending?  The next time you hear a call for that, ask if they know what the balanced budget amendment provides for.  Ask if what they want is to cut spending.  If they do, the Constitution is where they will find the formula. 

In our society we hear a lot of claptrap about the “political class” or the “political elite”.  I submit that we have always had this, that we will always have this.  Those who want a more “egalitarian” political atmosphere need to simply get off their duffs and become the political “elite”.  They can do this by reading, by learning about their Constitution, by following our history, by researching just what our candidates for office have been up to, by not depending upon Fox News, their local newspapers or Time Magazine, but look for themselves.  Our political class can be as sound and good as we demand.  They can be as base and corrupt as we allow. 

At no time in human history have we seen a constellation of public service so rarified as that which produced our liberty and nationhood.  Who else has a Thomas Jefferson, a George Washington, a John Adams, a Benjamin Franklin, a James Madison?  But note that these men’s names appeared frequently.  They were our generals, our pamphleteers, our colonial state governors, our statesmen, writers, lawyers, business leaders and ambassadors.  Many signed the Declaration of Independence, led the Revolution, wrote and signed the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution and many wrote their state constitutions.  They were the “political class:” of their day; the difference is that they were putting country first.  We have always had the “class” who doesn’t bother with politics.  They were too busy with farms or shops or their own world to participate.  Today we have them – they are busy with work, with vacations and hobbies, with family, with sports, with TV.  This won’t change and creating unconstitutional term limits won’t bring them into the game.

Our Constitution was designed to protect these “busy” citizens from their own sloth by restraining the more-or-less permanent “political class” and allowing access to it for anyone devoted enough to apply.  A return to a strict reading and adherence to our Constitution is the guarantee we are all searching for to solve our financial crisis and ensure our liberty.

Sally Morris is a member of Americans for Constitutional Government and the Executive Committee of the Valley Tea Party Conservative Coalition, for whose website, vtpcc.com, she blogs.