Restoring our foundation will take more than state resolutions and legislation. Restoring the voice of the states in the U.S. Congress is essential for long-term protection of self-governing freedom for our posterity. by Gary Wood
(conservative)
Saturday, February 20, 2010
States' rights initiatives aimed at restoring our 10th Amendment duties are currently sweeping the country. Media is picking up on it, pundits are spinning it a number of ways, and overall understanding is slowly improving despite the detractors using the same old scare tactics to paint it wrong in people's minds. People are awakening to the strength we can find within the original meaning of our U.S. Constitution. Thomas Jefferson was a leading voice on the importance of sovereign states performing their duty under the 10th Amendment.
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [X Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." National Bank Opinion, 1791.
Restoring our foundation will take more than state resolutions and legislation. Restoring the voice of the states in the U.S. Congress is essential for long-term protection of self-governing freedom for our posterity. This will be no easy task yet the states succeeded in taking their own voices out and can succeed in restoring them as well. How did they take their voices out? By pushing for direct election of senators by the people.
No matter their reasoning or best intentions men succumb to the sensual allure of power when tempted by its intoxication. Groups of men desire to be better off than any other groups outside their sphere. Factional beliefs and special interest desires create division rather than unification. Our federal government was founded with this understanding of human nature clearly in mind. Power divided among men (separation); daily special interest needs decided below the federal level (states and people); checks and balances placed carefully to guard posterity's opportunity for freedom all went into the carefully constructed system developed within the original meaning.
Authoritative checks and balance provide true separation of powers. One key for maintaining separation is the use of separate elective methods. Using different election methods was not because direct votes could not be counted. Direct votes for all officials amounted to representative democracy and history proved to our founding generation representative democracy became nothing more than mob rule controlled by factional special interests. Democracy always had been short lived and violent when it died.
Studying government structures over the ages gave in-depth understanding into the strengths and weaknesses of each. Whether despotic or communal in nature research showed students how governments evolved and how societies died. Too much power in too few hands spelled oppressive rebellion. Majority rule democracy proved unfit for providing freedom for the minority. Tyranny and anarchy cycled through each government while freedom was seldom known in the history of humanity. Yet it was the promises of freedom that drove colonists to unite, carefully guarding self-governing responsibility internally within their states while developing general governing approaches toward the world outside and between one another.
During long summer days, in 1787, debate raged over a structure for general government in a free society. In an initial attempt, under Articles of Confederation, a single legislative branch with a 100% approval vote from all states necessary for action was proving to be a poor formula. Groups were dividing, states struggling against states, and governments of the world were waiting for the young United States to fall. However, having a legislative branch responsible for initiating laws made sense as did a compromised agreement of bicameralism with two distinct methods of election to secure both separation and checks on power and factional influence.
Two plans for congressional structure were being debated. One called for a congress made up of representatives of the people to the advantage of larger populated states. The other was for a congress similar to the confederation where each state had an equal voice to the advantage of smaller states. The compromise created more than merely two houses, it divided power so the people's voice was always present in the House of Representatives and the states voice was always present in the Senate. One voice could carry the concerns of the majority while the other could check those concerns against state resources and the proper protection of the minority.
The U.S. Senate was always meant to have a different form of election so congress would not fall into two houses representing the people. When both houses represent the people factions can easily sway the will of the majority to the detriment of smaller states, minority interests, and resources. However, corruption finds a path into men's hearts and state legislators ,along with factional special interests, caused many problems.
This led to some state legislatures abdicating their duties by giving their citizens the responsibility of directly voting for senators. In an era of progressive thinking timing could not be better for marketing the idea across the country. Silencing states' voices in Congress removed a bothersome check on federal usurpation efforts. Ending corruption became the mantra and eventually 31 states called for an Article V convention to amend the Constitution (one short of the necessary number at the time). Wanting to avoid a convention Congress finally caved to the pressure resulting in the 17th Amendment. However, just as the "soak the rich" campaign for the 16th did not simply soak the rich, the 17th did not end corruption.
In fact, corruption is stronger than ever with power fueling big dollar senatorial campaigns while accountability to the people is completely unrealistic due to sheer numbers alone. State legislatures have no control over their senators nor do senators have allegiance to their states. Allegiance has fallen to the factions and special interest groups. Citizens have no personal contact with the men and women being courted by factional special interests. Citizen contact with their state representatives does them no good in controlling senators and six year voting cycles are too long.
State resources and minority interest suffers under mandated federal directives. The crushing desire of any voting majority assembled to demand some special welfare initiative bypasses states. Daily needs are slipping from the realm of localized self-government toward a nationalized approach. Our Federalist Republic is being reduced to a mere democracy and the people, though voting, have less choice and the states have less voice. Separated powers are merging; checks and balances are few; factional traditions ignore constitutional wisdom.
The 17th Amendment, like the 16th Amendment, failed to deliver yet people are now comfortable with the tradition of popular vote, majority rule democracy. Power is now flowing toward those factions best suited for operating in such a system. Our Federalist Republic stands in name only and the unique bicameral strength (having both states and people represented) of the legislative branch of the United States has been reduced to a mere faade.
During this time of difficult struggle to restore states' 10th Amendment duty care must be exercised in restoring state legislative responsibility for selecting senators. Citizens must be prepared to overcome tradition. To demand the foundation of the 10th without removing the damages of the 17th Amendment will prove to be ineffective for restoring proper roles in governing. When opponents of restoration claim corruption will result know citizens are better armed to control it under original meaning. Restoring our states' voice further strengthens our voice.
The views expressed
in this article are those of Gary Wood only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Gary Wood is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
"Ending corruption became the mantra and eventually 31 states called for an Article V convention to amend the Constitution (one short of the necessary number at the time)."
The author is incorrect in his statement. As the public record clearly shows at www.foavc.org, the 31 states in question had been reached by 1911 when there was only 46 states in the union. Two thirds of 46 (rounded to the next highest number) is 31 applying states. The myth is the applications were one short. This is not true. Under the terms of Article V, Congress was peremptorily mandated to call an Article V Convention.
The texts of the applications are clear and distinct. All in question requested a convention call for the purpose of proposing a single amendment, direct election of senators. Some of the applications did also ask for direct election of the president and vice president.
Thus, it is proven by documented evidence that those who suggest a single same subject effort to call an Article V Convention will succeed are proven false. Congress, as the documentary evidence clearly shows, knew exactly how many states had applied and obviously was aware of how many states were in the union along with what two thirds of that number of states was. Inspite of these facts, Congress ignored the applications and refused to call a convention.
Therefore those efforts today who, rather than simply bringing pressure to bear on Congress to obey the Constitution but instead insist on starting over with another set of applications, however identically written and so forth, are bound, as history shows, to be disappointed. For the facts of the matter are plain and irrefutable: until Congress is forced to call a convention, they will always find someway not to despite the fact such an action is a criminal action on their part as a violation of oath of office. Until this harm to state authority is rectified, all other harms people have mentioned in recent years such as the Tenth Amendment and so on will be continually ignored by Congress. An Article V Convention is the most powerful tool in the Constitution the states and the people have and as long as that tool is permitted to be thwarted by Congress and its allies, the other tools such as the Tenth Amendment and the rest will likewise be thwarted.
The documented record shows the states in their applications were complaining about expanded federal power as early as 1832. Thus, this violation of the Constitution, refusal to obey Article V is not only the first area where states sought to fight against this trend thus being the oldest violation of the Constitution but is, as everyone will sooner or later come to realize, the only solution to the issue. For like it or not, he who controls the amendment process controls the Constitution and therefore so long as Congress controls it, the Constitution is theirs to command. That control must be wrenched away and with it the original sin of allowing Congress its first proven documented violation of the Constitution---violation of the Article V Convention clause.
As shown in one of the first applications by the states, [link edited for length] (and please read all three pages of the application and comments following it recorded in Congress) Congress was not even allowed to debate the issue, let alone ignore the applications of the states.
The author should correct his information to reflect the accurate facts as reflected by public record.
Congress did not act immediately on the applications received in 1911 for thier own reasoning, probably due to their knowing New Mexico and Arizona were about to become states and a resolution was already being debated in the Senate, right or wrong in our view today. From the Senate website;
"In 1911, Senator Joseph Bristow from Kansas offered a resolution, proposing a constitutional amendment...Much wrangling characterized the debates, but in the summer of 1912 the House finally passed the amendment and sent it to the states for ratification. The campaign for public support was aided by senators such as Borah and political scientist George H. Haynes, whose scholarly work on the Senate contributed greatly to passage of the amendment.
Connecticut's approval gave the Seventeenth Amendment the required three-fourths majority, and it was added to the Constitution in 1913. The following year marked the first time all senatorial elections were held by popular vote."
Before fully considering the applications New Mexico became the 47th state in January 6th, 1912, then Arizona became the 48th on Feb. 14th. I will leave it to Mr. Walker to argue with the Congress of 1911 as to why they delayed and will leave it to the rest of the readers to determine the significance.
No matter whether the 17th was born of convention or resolution it silenced the voice of the states and was a bad move on the part of everyone but the progressives.
As Gary is a firm supporter of Article V and a convention, I know he will only agree with my showing this was a deliberate action on the part of Congress to not obey Article V.
Allow me to quote from the Congressional Record May 5, 1789 regarding the applications, [link edited for length]
To sum, the state of Virginia had just submitted an application for a convention. Mr. Bland had moved to send the application to the Committe of the whole on the state of the Union.
Mr. Boudinot. "According to the terms of the Constitution, the business cannot be taken up until a certain number of States have concurred in similar applications."
Mr. Bland thought there could be no impropriety in referring any subject to a committe.
Mr. Madison: "he had no dobut but the House was including to treat the present application with respect, but he doubed the propriety of committing it, because it would seem to imply that the House had a right to delbierate upon the subject. This he believed was not the case until two-thirds of the State legislatures concurred in such applications and then it is out of the power of Congress to deline complying the words of the Constitution being express and positive relative to the agency Congress may have in case of applications of this nature. He then quotes Article V and concludes: "From hence it must appear that Congress have no deliverative power on this occasion."
Mr Boudinot: "enough had been said to convince gentlemen that it was imporper to commit-for what purpose can it be done? wha can the committee report? The application is to call a convention. Now, in this case there is nothing left for us to do, but to call one when two-thirds of the State Legislatures apply for that purpose.
Mr. Bland: By the fifth article of the Constitution, Congress are obligated to order this convention when two-thirds of the Legislatures apply for it: but how can these reasons be properly weighed unless it be done in committee?
Mr. Huntington thought it proper to let the application remain on the table, it can be called up with others when enough are presented to make two-thirds of the whole states. There would be an evident impropriety in committing, because it would argue a right in the House to deliberate, and, consequently, a power to procrastinate the measure applied for. "
Mr. Tucker though it not right to disregard the application of any State, and interred that the House had a right to consider every appliation that was made; if two-thirds had not applied, the subject might be taken into consideration, but if two-thirds had applied, it precluded deliberation on the part of the House."
The meaning is clear. Congress doesn't even have the right of debate on the matter nor of any delay whatsoever. The purpose of the application is to call a convention. I think this text settles the meaning and purpose of an application and the fact congress was deliberately ignoring the Constitution then as now.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
![[link edited for length]](http://foa5c.org/file.php/1/Amendments/001_Annals_of_Congress_00258_1789_HL.JPG){kind=link}