The claim to sovereignty and the assignments of such sovereignty do not belong to our government, either federal or State. by Republicae
(libertarian)
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
In consideration of the times in which we live and the character of government to which we are now subjected in this country, can there be any possibility that our Founders would have conceived and established a government that was so centralized in its supremacy when they fought, sacrificed and died to gain independence from a supreme government only to create one similar in supremacy?
Through the decades there has been almost a daily remodeling of the very substance of our government and of the intentional divisions created by the Framers of our Constitution to make such consolidation of government supremacy so cumbersome that any such attempts would not only cause conflicts, but pressing inefficiencies. When, in the course of such remodeling, the powers of representation become despotic, not only in its execution of power, but in its very nature, then it becomes the most desperate duty of the People to staunchly defend the original principles enumerated to enlighten the awareness of their Liberty.
Once the spheres of co-ordinate powers were clearly distinguished there was no doubt as to the operations of such powers or of the manner in which those powers should and should not overlap jurisdiction. As time passed however, the lines were intentionally blurred by the body politic as exclusive privileges were introduced, government pensions promoted and various judicial actions dispensed, which allowed an arbitrary power in government to collect and then dispense the wealth of this People at its pleasure, to determine the degree of Rights afforded to the People as though such Rights were a government grant. In doing so, this government has created the most lucrative partialities for itself and its beneficiaries, all in its attempt to gain a centralized supremacy over the system of federalism that once, to a degree, protected the People from the abuses brought about by both uninhibited ambition and the avarice that follows such ambition.
There has been a political habit of corruption within our government, brought about by the instrumentality of supposed necessity and, of course, convenience. As with all such political corruption, there are always consequences, one of those consequences is the positioning of this government as the bountiful grantor to its beneficiaries, whether the wealthy or the poverty stricken, using powers never enumerated and definitely never delegated. Over the years, this government has used these powers; all usurped, to create the most dangerous political combinations, many between the government itself and corporate entities, combinations that provide mutual benefits to both while creating a greater distress among the People who must pay the price for such relationships. There has also arisen, within such political combinations, a power vested by government itself to actually regulate the poverty and even the wealth of individuals through the manipulation of economic principles.
Within these political combinations, there has evolved a body politic that now materially affects the interests of all persons in this country through the expansion of powers far beyond those delegated. It is evident that all powers were originally delegated from the People, through the agency of the Several States, and yet, the federal government now assumes powers far greater than the very source from where all power and authority was delegated, and thus extracted. Policies, pernicious in character, have been formed between those who administer government and those who seek to benefit, either financially or politically from such policies. It now appears that both the vices and the capriciousness of politicians dictate all the claims of government to powers that were never intended to reside in government. Such claims to power always beget a growing oppression of the People, as experience of such coercion has sufficiently proved.
The evolved hostility toward individual Liberty is increasingly exemplified by this government's claim to regulate essential aspects that are commonly associated with the life of an individual. While it is very true that our Freedoms may well prove inconvenient to this government, we should, in no wise, allow this government any abridgements of the foundations of our Liberty. There is, as there always has been, a propensity of the political process that leans toward mischievous inclinations. There must be a reinstitution of the Constitutional prohibitions on the powers by which this government nurtures itself. There must be a rejection and an elimination of government precedents by which such infringements have become legally justified.
Along with such blatant infringements, our Congress has been successful in the creation of pecuniary inequities, redistributing, as it were, both the wealth and the poverty of this country on a scale that has never been witness in our history. With such inequities come discord and discontent, all the while avoiding the very principles, which would be far more propitious to the happiness of the People and the future safety of the Republic. With such powers, the government has extended itself beyond the limits of all social necessity in the pursuit of its own aggrandizements, its funding systems, emoluments, pensions, standing armies, government sponsored corporations, banks and by its political patronages. In short, it has assumed the absolute power to act according to the pleasure of political expediencies in the interests, ambitions and avarices of its own administration.
The principles of our American Revolution have long since faded; instead we have allowed this government to invest itself in the instruments of our own oppression. By a system of inferences and distorted construction, this government has laden itself with superfluous powers, which are both pernicious in execution and devoid of Constitutional principles. We have yet to understand that the lost of one of our natural Rights is equivalent to the loss of them all.
There are basically two types of construction regarding the Constitution, one which is maintain the principles upon which this country was founded, the other calculated to corrupt those principles and, in the process, destroying such principles. As the expositor of certain powers, this government, extending those powers, no longer seeks to preserve the Rights of the People, but seeks to diminish the force of such Rights in the lives of individuals while reigning over them as though they were subjects of government instead of Sovereigns. It should be very evident that the means to accomplish destruction of the force of our Rights, as individuals must occur before it destroys the Liberty associated with our country. This government has employed a variety of obscurities while assuming unlimited powers of Constitutional construction to destroy our Liberties piece-meal.
Should we find it amazing that the idea of a sovereign national government is nowhere to be found in either the Declaration of Independence, the federal Constitution, nor, for that matter, in any Constitution of the Several States? In fact, the word is never used in any of those documents and yet the word is now used to describe not only the character, but also the very nature of this heavily centralized government. Our Founding documents never presented the intimation of sovereign power to government, instead, every one of those documents we find instead of sovereign powers, powers that are co-dependent, divided powers and powers delegated or, as in the case of the States, reserved powers. All such powers, as evidenced by those documents, were both intentionally restrained and limited.
There is however, a reference within the Bill of Rights which declares the States "to be free, sovereign and independent, but while it is clear that each State has those attributes it does not imply that the government of those States are free, sovereign and independent, for the State governments must also be subject to the Sovereignty of the People themselves. The reference is in regard to each State's stance in relationship to other States and any foreign entity or country, including the federal government. Since our governments, both federal and State, are established by the People, the People retain all Sovereignty and deputize governments to act on their behalf and in their best interests. Our governments are the Servants of the People, as such there is no way to invest Servants with Sovereignty since Sovereignty, by definition and implication, declares the superiority of the Sovereign and the subordination of the Servant. Likewise, as the States, deputized by the People, did not, upon acceding to the union, transfer any Sovereignty from the People, but confined and limited powers as a means of sustaining the Right of self-government only.
It must be understood that actual Sovereign can neither be fiduciary, nor is it subject to external limitations except by the act of deputizing the law and the trust of the People. A government which has no external limitations, one which has the ability to determine its own limitations will always become unlimited in the scope of power it exerts and will eventually self-destruct from the excesses it pursues.
Can there be any doubt that it is a Natural Right to institute and limit our own government, establishing it on very specific principles designed to inhibit the possible extension, and therefore, the usurpation of powers which are even now used to regulate the consciences of People, confiscate their properties and redistribute the fruit of their own labors. Our government has increased its own authority, and there should be no doubt that the various degrees of our oppression are caused by what can only be described as this government's pecuniary fanaticism. The Framers, at least most of them, viewed the idea of a sovereign government, whether the federal government or those of the States, as dangerous, as such, they sought to eradicate the principles of a government sovereignty by deeply investing our governments with very specific and very limited powers, all of which were enumerated.
Our country is now tortured by all the usurpations of the People's Sovereignty and yet, we have been carefully taught to believe that our government is indeed sovereign and that we should, in all allegiance to the idea of its sovereignty, sacrifice ourselves, our Rights, our Liberty and our Freedom to maintain a system that no longer acts on the behalf of the People. Under the pretense that the purposes of this government is nothing less than the advancement of the national good, many have willingly allowed themselves to be subjugated to an illegitimate authority that, by its own claim, is the sovereign power over the People and the People little more than servants to the government's supremacy. We now find ourselves in a thralldom, subjected to a system that imposes itself upon the People as though they were subjects of the government.
There should be nothing more objectionable to a free People than the idea of sovereign supremacy of government, for such an idea should be no less abhorrent than the rodomontade of kings who claimed their powers by divine right. Contrary to discerning any power of sovereign supremacy of government, our Constitution enumerates such a long catalog of balances, checks, and divisions of powers, limitations and restrictions that the concept of such supremacy is nullified. Sovereignty and the Right of self-government inherently reside in the People, but neither resides in government except by force and fraud.
Sovereignty therefore, by definition, infers a corresponding inferiority. Since this is the case it must be concluded that all political departments of government hold power through the authority of the People as it is delegated to the government and not from the government itself. While our government pretends to respect the Sovereignty and Consent of the People, the truth is that it directly assaults both. Original construction of the Constitution basically established three conventional authorities over the federal government, the mass of which reside within the People of each of the Several States, the next was in the State governments which were deputized by the People to appoint Senators to the federal Senate and the third being the authority of the States to enter into convention for the Amendment of the Constitution. Two Constitutions are involved in our form of government, one being the Constitutions of the States, the other being the federal Constitution, as such there are two distinct jurisdictions, each with powers delegated and reserved.
There is, and must be, a material difference between the concepts of the Right of self-government and sovereignty of a government; the first allows for the People to bestow very limited and enumerated powers to government while the second allows for the People to receive a limited franchise to their lives. The People of the Several States retain all powers that were not bestowed on either the State governments or the federal government; as such, the People never relinquished a portion of their Sovereignty proper, but only allowed for the limited grant of power deputizing the governments of the Several States and the federal government. Essentially, neither the State nor federal governments received any powers except as trustees of the Sovereignty of the People.
Upon reading elements of the various State Constitutions it becomes obvious that the principles behind those Constitutions recognized the self-evident Rights of the Individuals. Additionally, there is the expression of the Sovereignty of the People in their sole ability to form, by compact, a government. There is no higher form of Sovereignty than the capability of forming a body politic or government.
When reading the individual Constitutions of the States, the phrase "Several States or States" does not refer to all the People that comprise the United States, but the People who comprise the individual State Republics. The usage explicitly denotes a mutual consent of the People who have organized themselves into a civil society, as such the Sovereignty of this association and all allegiance due to that Sovereign association, along with the Right to internal self-government clearly declares the fact that there is nothing synonymous between the terms State and government. The States are comprised of Sovereign Individuals and the governments of those States are the instituted organizations that has been deputized by the Sovereign Individuals used, in trust, to help facilitate the maintenance, and if necessary, the defense of their Rights, Liberty and Freedom.
The plurality of the States, as well as the definition of federalism itself, completely rejects the idea that there is a national state organized and centralized in a general supreme government by the federal Constitution. When speaking of the term "United States", the Constitution simply bears witness that there was an averment of the pre-existing condition set forth by the compact between the People, called the States. There is, in the very word "United" an admission in the Constitution that political societies are able to contract with each other; thus when we understand the phrase "a more perfect union", it was a recognition that there was, in the powers of the People, the ability to amend the previous union under the Articles of Confederation, each State being the same party to the amended union as they were to the original union.
A Compact, such as the Articles of Confederation or the federal Constitution, exhibited the Sovereign character of the People, via the instrumentality of the States, as they exercised their Right and Power to enter into treaties with each other. While the Articles of Confederation gave preference to the State governments, the Constitution gave preference to a co-ordinate structure of checks and balances between the States and the newly formed general government. The parties of the previous Confederation were exactly the same parties who formed the Constitution, as such, the States, which are trustees of the People's Will and Consent, not only had the Power to create a Charter, but retain, to this day, the Power to amend or even destroy that Charter. It should therefore be evident that the term "union" was never intended to describe our government, only the Compact between the States as they exercise the Sovereignty of the People.
The lack of uniformity in the Constitutions and the governments of the Several States denotes the explicit independent nature of the States and, in contrast to the States, of the federal government itself, for if the formation of the union of States and the resulting general government it created were the action of all the People of all the States in unison, then there would be no need for State Constitutions. Indeed, had the Constitution been an act of the whole of the population of the United States then every State would simply be a province without the necessity of individual Constitutions, jurisdictions, legislatures, senates, etc. The States would have been relegated to nothing more than departments of the federal government, completely dependent upon the central government's dictates without recourse or redress, without power to amend any edicts imposed by the general government. Of course, that is exactly what the Consolidationist have always wanted, a nationalized government ruling over provinces and that is essentially what this country has devolved into over the decades.
As trustees of the Sovereign Power of the People, the States have the authority to amend the Constitutional Compact, such power and authority is not left in the hands of Congress, no majority in Congress is able to either call a convention or amend the Constitution. It is the States, acting on behalf of the Sovereign Character of the People, who can, upon gaining two-thirds agreement in the legislatures of the States, compel Congress to call a convention, once called three-fourths of the States may amend the Constitution. That power and authority does not reside in the federal government or in any branch of that government, but in the States. There is therefore, a recognition of the instrumental supremacy of the States as they act in the Sovereign Character of the People. This instrumental supremacy is not only over Congress, but also over the Executive and Judicial Branches of our federal government. The Power to Amend the very document that allows for the general government is the Power over the general government in all its aspects. Indeed, the Power to delegate or even reserve any power or authority denotes instrumental supremacy.
It should also be evidently clear that the People of the Several States, acting in their Sovereign Capacity, invested their State governments with far greater latitudes of political operations than they invested in the federal government. The federal government was limited in its authority and in the execution of that authority. Equally clear is the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits any construction that would allow the Rights Retained by the People to be denied or disparaged; the principle is further constructed in the Twelfth Amendment which reserves to the States respectively or to the People all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States.
A Power can only be Reserved or Retained if it were originally resident in the first place, likewise, a Power can only be delegated from the source of that Power. Therefore, the States, acting upon the Sovereign Character of the People have granted a degree of limited power to the federal government.
Despite arguments to the contrary, there has never been a single one of the States in these United States which have consented to dissolution into one nation under a centralized government. All Powers reserved by the States and Retained by the People are not delegated, in any way, to the general government through the instrument of the Constitution, nor have any Rights of the People, whether considered in terms of the plurality or the Individual, been relinquished to either the State or federal governments.
All Powers and Rights Reserved are only exposed to very specific and narrowly defined deductions, while all powers and rights delegated are limited and with that limitation there is a definitive injunction against the denial or disparagement of the Rights enumerated and those which were not enumerated by the Constitution. It is quite evident in this quote from The Federalist: "The Assent and Ratification of the People, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the Distinct and Independent States to which they belong, are the Sources of the Constitution. It is therefore not a national, but a federal Compact."
Prior to our Constitutional Compact, societies and governments were formed on the principle of subordination and submission to unlimited power and authority. Had it not been for those Patriots who bravely fought and sacrificed during the Revolution and the political philosophies that influenced those Patriots, then the Natural Right of Self-Government and the Rights of the Individual to pursue Freedom and Liberty may have never arisen. Within the Declaration of Independence there is a proclamation of the Right of the People to Alter, Abolish and Institute governments that "seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness". That is an amazing principle today, especially when the People begin to once again claim that Right and Duty.
Far from being indistinct or undefined, our system of governments is one of several co-ordinate, but distinct divisions that are specified with the most deliberate exactitude. When speaking of our governments, it is evident by virtue of their Right to Alter, Abolish and Institute governments, the People of the Several States established these co-ordinate divisions within our government, but did so without investing one section of that system of governments with supremacy over the others. Accordingly, due to the mutual structural dependence of the federal Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches, there is also a structural dependence of those federal Branches on the States themselves and upon the union they [the States] have with one another under the Constitutional Compact. At one time, the federal government was dependent on the States, unfortunately that is no longer the case as the principles of Constitutional Construction have been subverted and distorted through federal usurpations.
The primary principle of our system of governments is that both the federal and the State governments are, in fact, nothing more than different agents and trustees, deputized by the People and instituted with different powers for different purposes. The two governments, federal and State, are intended to provide a set of controls which provide for the security of the People in their Sovereign Character. Indeed, the federal Legislature was to be restrained by its dependence on the People, not only by its dependence on the People, but by its dependence and the oversight of the Legislatures of the Several States in order that there be a collateral control outside the federal government. The degree of supremacy delegated to government, either federal or State, is only delegated within the very restrictive spheres of action, limited to the basis of the powers actually and explicitly delegated.
The Framers of the Constitution were well aware that if the general government were to possess powers resembling sovereignty, then it would eventually take upon itself the power to regulate public and private property, disposing of it at the will of government politicians and bureaucrats. Indeed, they were aware of the tendency of governments to grow as the access to power increases; as that access increases, the more people are included in the decisions of the use of such power, the consequences of such growth and access is that the ambition and avarice of those in power is gratified at the expense of the People.
Our Constitution did not empower, nor did it invest our elected representatives with the authority to govern beyond certain limitations, this is especially true when it comes to individuals and their property. Elections were seen as another layer of control over government, while not perfect, it has a chilling effect on the attributes of usurpation when the electorate are involved and educated, otherwise it becomes a an exercise in futility as politicians abuse the electoral system to their advantage.
When the politicians are held to their responsibility as trustees of the People's Sovereignty, then the relationship between the trustees and the People's trust is maintained. It is apparent that politicians must be reminded of their obligations and while there is the tendency of politicians to seek powers of supremacy in governing, they must always be held accountable if they seek to subvert the principle of the People's Sovereignty. This demand for accountability must be held in the highest regard, both by the People and those invested with the People's trust, otherwise the foundation upon which our Republic rests will eventually crumble.
It must be understood, that in a similar fashion as the federal government, the State governments are also only trustees of the People, deputized on their behalf to lend a layer of protection to the People, not only against internal State intrusions into their lives, but also federal intrusions. Likewise, just as the federal government was not invested with unlimited powers of taxation for maintaining and sustaining itself, so too the States themselves were limited in their ability to tax the People in order to sustain State government. Of course, it is under the pretext of the public good that government tends to mask its requirements of ever-increasing taxation. The People are not the government's purse!
Within our Constitution there is evidence that the motives behind the various enumerations of powers and rights invested in both the State and federal governments were to be precautionary in nature. Indeed, the Constitution places prohibitions on States as well as on the federal government, and with good reason. For instance, the States were prohibited from passing any bill of attainder or expost facto law or any law that would impair the obligations of contracts, at the same time it empowers the Congress with the responsibility to coin money and to fix the standard of that money in terms of weights and measures. Why? These were precautions against the various modes of assaulting private property and indeed individual liberties associated with economic oppression. It can not be more clear that a power which is prohibited to the States and not expressly delegated to the federal government should be exercised by neither; should it not be equally as clear that if the direct exercise of a power is prohibited, then it should not be exercised indirectly either.
This government, especially Congress, has long-since abandoned the idea that while it has the delegated power to make all laws that are necessary to execute the powers of government, it also has the responsibility to make sure that those laws are also proper for the execution of government. If the end result of a law is not legitimate, then the law itself cannot be legitimate, there must be a proper role for a law, any law passed by Congress and the primary factor determining legal legitimacy is the effect it has upon the People, upon their lives, their livelihoods, their Liberty and their Freedom.
Can there be any doubt that the Framers, at least the majority of them, viewed the consolidation of powers as a very real and potentially destructive danger to not only the Liberty of the People, but the entire structure of the Republic? To entertain the idea that the intention of the Framers was to imbue our federal government with sovereignty is completely inconsistent with all the principles they crafted into the Constitution, such as the balance and restraint of powers, the division of powers; indeed the entire concept of a federation denies the foundation of either centralized sovereignty or localized State sovereignty. While it is true that our government has devolved into a system that determines its own limitations, that was not the case at the time our Constitutional Republic was established. For if our government can determine its own limitations then, it should be obvious, the judgment of government will always exercise power in an unlimited fashion. The federal government, no matter what Branch, cannot be its own judge.
It is impossible for a delegated power to be exercised as though there were absolutely no restrain as to how that power is used, that is the purpose of the act of congruent powers, both delegated and reserved. It is the balance in the system, just as the federal government can seek to impede certain activities of the State governments because of the prohibitions that the States agreed to adhere to in regards to the powers they delegated to the federal government, likewise, the federal government can be impeded in certain activities by the States because of the limitations placed upon the federal government through the delegation of powers by the States. The fact is that both the federal and State governments are both entrusted with certain powers, but with that entrustment comes very distinct limitations, thus both governments are limited governments. Both governments received no monopoly of power nor were they delegated a monopoly on the means and manner in which those delegated powers could be administered.
It should also be obvious that when a system of government is reduced to the clients of various interests, whether corporate or political, then our Legislators can be and have been bribed into a docile state of obedience to masters other than the People. Our government officials, both elected and appointed, have, for the most part, have chosen to participate in a bonus and patronage system that can hardly be considered in the best interest of this country or the People.
Today, we live under a system that is the progeny, not of our Constitutional Framers, but under a system born as the continuing progeny of Un-Constitutional Bastards, illegitimate, with no claim to the Heritage of our Founders and no desire to that claim.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 12
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Republicae only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Republicae 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.
The founding fathers were elites. They had no reason to establish a strong, centralized government as they already had all the power they needed. All we have witnessed over two hundred years is the evolution of power and control which originated with these original elites. Anything written in the original papers were simply safegaurds to prevent the old powers from exerting their influence over the new. To see this as some ideal situation geared to enable the "common man" to become uncommon is naive.
Posted By: Logical Premise
Date: June 15, 2010 07:57:47 PM
Fascinating article. However, I do have one minor quibble -- the system under which the government was established was certainly not designed or devised to promote national sovereignty, I agree. But it seems the lynchpin of your argument is thus:
"Sovereignty therefore, by definition, infers a corresponding inferiority. Since this is the case it must be concluded that all political departments of government hold power through the authority of the People as it is delegated to the government and not from the government itself. While our government pretends to respect the Sovereignty and Consent of the People, the truth is that it directly assaults both. Original construction of the Constitution basically established three conventional authorities over the federal government, the mass of which reside within the People of each of the Several States, the next was in the State governments which were deputized by the People to appoint Senators to the federal Senate and the third being the authority of the States to enter into convention for the Amendment of the Constitution. Two Constitutions are involved in our form of government, one being the Constitutions of the States, the other being the federal Constitution, as such there are two distinct jurisdictions, each with powers delegated and reserved."
Which leads me to ask -- how does one divide "the Government" from "the People" if the People abrogated their control of the government? The States once had the right and ability to seat Senators, but there was a Constitutional amendment to remove that.
If the states are the instrument of the People, then why did not the People select new Senators to undo what had been done? Why has there been no serious organized effort by any large mass of people to undo this amendment or have anything approaching an Article V convention to redo the whole mess?
I would say thus: The People cannot claim sovereignty they surrendered through inattention, sloth, and corruption. The fact that the federal government has arrogated itself powers it does not have the authority -- or right -- to use is a symptom, not a cause, of this malaise.
And I agree with Gede. The very definition of who could and could not vote or hold office in the original Constitution and the fact that the Senate was effectively controlled by the State Governments rather neatly sidesteps the reality that the "People" were hardly every American citizen.
Posted By: Republicae
Date: June 15, 2010 09:27:57 PM
The question is did the People abrogate their control of the government? I see where the People slumbered their way toward a type of complacency that has allowed government to assume a particular stature beyond that which was delegated to government. Yes, States did have the delegated authority to appoint a Senator, after the 17th Amendment to the Constitution that very specific division of authority was removed from the States and instead we have a situation where the Senate is, for a better terminology, auctioned off at the voting booth and influenced by the interests that can bring pressure to bear on elections. While prior to the 17th Amendment there were definitely issues with the manner in which the States made such appointments, the appointment of Senators by the States did provide a degree of separation that allowed for the Senate to be relatively isolated and more in tune with the States where they resided.
Essentially what the 17th Amendment did was to nationalize the Senate, that was purposeful for it would allow for a much more centralizing force to be issued and maintained. As far back as the election of 1880, The Sentinel newspaper reported: “Garfield’s rule will be the transitory period between State Sovereignty and National Sovereignty. The United States Senate will give way to a National Senate. State Constitutions and the United States Senate are relics of State Sovereignty and implements of treason. Garfield’s Presidency will be the Regency of Stalwartism; after that-REX.”
James Garfield himself made this statement in a speech: “The influence of Jefferson’s Democratic principles is rapidly waning, while the principles of Hamilton are rapidly increasing. Power has been gravitating toward the Central Government.” –July 3rd, 1881.
“If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated [not absorbed] into one nation, every district ought to have a proportional share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation…. In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.”
Mr. Madison is very clear, that there is an extremely important reason behind placing layers of separation within the structure of a government that is bound by a “simple league”, Sovereign and Independent States, each sharing in the common council of both through their individual Senators appointed by the States to serve, not the nation, but the respective States.
Mr. Madison goes on to say: “Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.
Mr. Madison clearly states that the structural requirement of Senators who are answerable to their respective States is imperative to the maintenance of both checks and balances within the structure as a whole and to protect the Will of the People through the ancillary sovereignty of the States. Additionally, this structure was also an essential element in preventing potential excesses in legislation.
Mr. Madison then gives a more thorough explanation of the reasons behind the particular Constitutional Structure of the Republic:
“First. It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust. In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient. This is a precaution founded on such clear principles, and now so well understood in the United States, that it would be more than superfluous to enlarge on it. I will barely remark, that as the improbability of sinister combinations will be in proportion to the dissimilarity in the genius of the two bodies, it must be politic to distinguish them from each other by every circumstance, which will consist with a due harmony in all proper measures, and with the genuine principles of republican government.
You will notice Mr. Madison states, in no uncertain terms, that by requiring two separate and distinct bodies, as in the House of Representatives and the Senate, that such a structure not only provides a vital check on government in general, but it also doubles the security of the People themselves by requiring concurrence of those bodies. Such concurrence would provide a necessary check to potential ambitions, usurpations and corruption that could easily occur if there was but one body or if the two mirrored one another.
Posted By: Republicae
Date: June 15, 2010 09:30:39 PM
"All Power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either." Thomas Paine
With the passage of the 17th Amendment, that is exactly what happened. The Senate was taken out of the hands of the State Legislatures, in a way it was transformed not only into a democratized unit, but it was also nationalized making it little more then a de facto branch within the centralized government. By placing the Senate on the open market of direct elections, the Senate no longer was an institution that could and did counter-balance the House of Representatives, but it was no longer a check on the general federal governments ability define its own sovereignty over the State Republics and thus the People themselves.
More importantly, the more damaging effect was that the Senate was no longer answerable to the State Legislatures. This one act of nationalization of the Senate allowed for the neutralization of all claims, and thus powers, by the States to their former Sovereignty and their ability to uphold that key component of the delegation from the States of a portion of their Sovereignty to the federal government. Since a Senator was now only answerable to the People in direct election, he or she could not easily be chastised, recalled or impeached by the State Legislature. This was an essential power of the individual State legislatures and indeed of the People themselves. As it is, the States have no real representation within Congress itself, because like the House of Representatives, the Senate is now only answerable to the People by the electoral process and are, in a very real sense, on the open market of influences.
Under such a system, there is particularly one type of influence upon the Senate that exceeds all others and that influence is of the federal government. The Senate has, in essence, become nothing more than an arm of the federal government and is far more likely to be in agreement with the desires of the general government instead of the People or the States.
As it is, the Senate is an isolated power that does little but assist in the concentrate the power of the federal government, centralizing its authority and expanding its ability to usurp any power it deems fit and necessary in order to advance its own will without the Consent of the People even though it was the People themselves that elected the Senate.
At present, the States must compete along with other Lobbyist and Special Interests for the ear of the Senate. The Repeal of the 17th Amendment would be an effective measure to decentralize the power of the federal government and would, in a very powerful measure, establish a direct line between the State Republics and the general federal government. The States currently must direct their request and concerns to numerous agencies, stepping through a labyrinth of bureaucracies in order to attain an audience. The State Republics have little of the Constitutional Authority or Power as provided and enumerated within the Constitution. In a very real sense, the States have been relegated to sub-components, provinces as it were, of the general government and thereby answerable to the entire power-structure of the general federal government.
Second. The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the United States, as well as from the history of other nations. But a position that will not be contradicted need not be proved. All that need be remarked is, that a body which is to correct this infirmity ought itself to be free from it, and consequently ought to be less numerous. It ought, moreover, to possess great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its authority by a tenure of considerable duration.
In the above statement, Mr. Madison makes it perfectly clear that along with the other essential workings of the Senate, that by providing for an indirect election by the People through the State Legislatures the Senate would be yet another check on the potential for radical, wasteful and useless legislation. As we have seen over the decades, the Senate has been a virtual Petri Dish of all manner of novel ideas and legislations, most of which have proved not in the best interest of this Country or its People. By placing the responsibility of the appointment of the Senate to the State Legislatures, such illegitimate and unwise legislative excesses can be avoided, or at least diverted by the power of the State Legislatures to recall their Senator to explain such excesses in the Senate.
In the following, Mr. Madison gave the reason for government, good government: “A good government implies two things: first, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained. Some governments are deficient in both these qualities; most governments are deficient in the first. I scruple not to assert, that in American governments too little attention has been paid to the last. The federal Constitution avoids this error; and what merits particular notice, it provides for the last in a mode which increases the security for the first.”
As seen the reason for good government is fidelity to the object of government and that is the Happiness of the People. Additionally, the only way to attain that object is by having the knowledge and thereby the tools to attain it. Those tools were given to us through that incredible document the Constitution and the original structure is contains.
Posted By: Republicae
Date: June 15, 2010 09:31:59 PM
Now, concerning the Independent character and authority of the States, we must look to an ancillary enumeration of power found in the 9th and 10th Amendments. It should be evident that our Founders feared the concentration and centralization of power into the federal government and the potential reach such a system that would supercede the authority delegated by the State Republics in an unrestrained grasp of power. The Founders established a system that would assist in the prevention of any one branch of government being the sole judge of its own power or the scope of its own authority. That process cannot be and was never intended to be left to the unrestrained discretion of any single branch of government, nor was it intended to give all three branches of the federal government such discretion without the ability to recall such decisions and judgments. The Independent character and authority of the individual State Republics was equally essential to the process of checks and balances as the Separation of Powers between the Three Branches of the general government.
At present, the position of the States is totally dependent upon the transitory nature of Congress in conjunction with various Judiciary decisions made through the years that effectively neutralize the position of the State Republics. In the Constitution, the States are, by compact between them as Independent States, guaranteed Republican forms of government. Due to the various novel legislations by Congress, such as the 17th Amendment, and the numerous Judicial reviews and opinions, such a guarantee has been severely compromised to the point that the State Republics have been essentially decommissioned to a relegated position within the nationalized government.
It is not difficult to see that the position of the States has been effectively weakened and that the entire domain of the States has been rendered vulnerable to any federal decision or to the ability of the federal government to apply undue pressure on the States to achieve a particular end. The States have been forced to resign their authority to the federal instead of enforcing the delegation of authority to the federal government.
The Framers of the Constitution provided a very clear mechanism, actually two, to define a specific balance within the political process in this country. One primary mechanism was the enumeration and delineation of a division of authority between the State Republics and the reflective federal government. That mechanism was the 10th Amendment. The second, as has been discussed, was the mechanism the appointment of each State Senator by the State Legislature. These two mechanisms provided for a very specific division and administration of powers. The passage of the 17th Amendment effectively eviscerated both mechanisms.
As Thomas Paine said, time does not alter either the nature or the quality of the principles behind power. Either that power is delegated from a superior source of Sovereignty or it is assumed and therefore usurped. Now, the question of Sovereignty is perhaps one of the most important questions concerning the degree and quality of Liberty within this country. Only a Sovereign Source can delegate power and authority; likewise, only a Subordinate Source can receive those delegated powers and authority to act upon them.
It then becomes quite obvious in the following words within the Declaration of Independence where all Sovereignty emanates: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" Those peculiar words were to declare the independence of the colonies from Britain. Additionally, once the War for American Independence was won, Great Britain recognized each State, by name, as being Sovereign and Independent States. This same phraseology was then used in the Articles of Confederation in the description of the States.
When these same States, by the consent of their Citizens, through Convention ratified the Constitution they did so in the same Sovereign Status as they did when they Declared their Independence to form a Revolutionary government and then formulated a Confederation through Consent and Compact; as the need arose they then entered into a Compact between themselves to form the States in Union. They, through Consent, retained the same style throughout every stage of political formation. Each government, both the government of the Several States and the general government of the States or the federal government, were delegated powers and authority derived from the Consent of the People Sovereign.
The facts are well-established and the provision within the Constitution is too explicit to deduct any other opinion except that the States retained their Sovereign Status through the delegated authority and powers of the People through their Consent. So, even after the Ratification of the Constitution, the independent, distinct and sovereign character by which they both formed and ratified that Compact was never divested from the States, nor the People. The People are the Prima Materia Imperium from which all Powers and Authority stems within this country and within both the State and the federal governments, it can not originate in either government since they are both ordained and established by the People. Remember, a thing created can never be greater then the one who created it, the act of creation is the superior act.
Each government is the natural extension of the governed since each government, whether State or general, partakes in the character of the source which formed it to act as an Agent on the behalf of those who gave Consent; thereby delegating authority and power to act in their best interests. Since Sovereignty is the source of all delegated powers and authority, the primary benefactor of such power and authority will be the States in which the Sovereign People reside, from there the States, acting as Agents of the People will properly delegate and grant a degree of authority and powers to the general or federal government to act in a limited capacity on behalf of the States united as a political community for the Sole Benefit of their Citizens.
The federal government has no powers or authority that emanates inherently from itself, despite its claim to the contrary, but must rely solely upon the delegation of those powers and that authority from the Sovereignty of the People of the Several States. The federal government is a reflection of the States united through the Voluntary Compact of Union, otherwise known as the Constitution.
Posted By: Republicae
Date: June 15, 2010 09:32:32 PM
The allegiance of the People therefore, will naturally be toward their respective States since it is the Several States that make up the Voluntary Union of States which reflects those States through the usage of Three Distinct and Separate Branches. Each of those Branches are also totally dependent on the Concurrent Consent of the States and the People in their Sovereign Character as each Branch depends on the Delegation of Their Power and Authority to act.
So, the States were Ordained to act through the powers and authority delegated to them by the Sovereign People of each State, in turn the federal government was Ordained by the States to act both on the behalf of the States and in turn the People. The government of the United States is not now, nor has it ever been singular, but reflects the Several States by their Concurrent Consent as Ordained and Granted by the People.
The Preamble of the Constitution defines the reasons for the Ordination of the government and those reasons are clearly enumerated as very specific objects: "to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." So, it was the Several States, or the People that make up the Several States, that Ordained the government through the Ratification of the Constitution between them; this Act of Concurrent Consent and Ratification did not place the federal government over the States or the People, the Several States, and thus the People only delegated a degree of authority and power to it in order for it to fulfill the specific enumerated objects previously stated.
It is obvious therefore, or at least it should be, that the one to whom authority and power is delegated is not, nor can it be higher then the one delegating that power and authority. The Authority that ordains and establishes must therefore, be higher than that which is ordained and established. This should be common sense, unfortunately the assumption of powers not only usurps common sense, but power as well.
The 10th Amendment states clearly that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So, by the Compact between the Several States vested a degree of power and authority to the general or federal government. It split this power and authority between Three Branches, distinct in purpose and operations. The 10th Amendment then continues to say that those powers that are not delegated to the federal government and that are not prohibited by it [the Constitution] are reserved to the States or to the People. This is not a limitation upon either the States or the People, but solely upon the federal government of these United States. It is also apparent that there are powers and authority that the People did not delegate to either the States or the federal government, but that are completely retained by them alone.
This is the bar, the measurement of all government action and legislation. There can be no action or legislation that infringes upon the Retained Rights, the Retained Authority and Power of the People. Although Congress and even the State Legislatures tend to present and pass legislation that does not conform to the principle that the People retain these Sovereign Characteristics, the proper and legal measure of all legislation is if that legislation contradicts those Rights Reserved and Retained by the People and the People alone. There are, in additional to those Rights enumerated within the Constitution, Rights, Power and Authority Retained by the People which are not mentioned, not enumerated within the Constitutional Compact.
Additionally, even the Supreme Court of these United States should, by the act of the Sovereign Source of its own delegated powers, always consider the measure of all opinions based not on an allowable degree of Rights due the People, but solely limiting the assumption of powers by the government itself. The Supreme Court only holds the degree of supremacy as it is delegated to it and no more.
Through the Compact between the Several States, the People ordained and established a government of the People, by the People and solely for benefit of the People. This government was formed and intended to operate as a federal, in contradistinction of a national government. In a national government all other Constitutions and governments, such as those of the States would be superceded and absorbed, but that was never the case, nor is it the case even though for decades that has been the primary focus of certain elements within the federal government and both of the ruling political parties. The Several States are the expression of the People's Sovereignty, as is the federal government the expression of the People's Will through the Several States in Union. Each of the Several States, by Concurrent Consent of the People, ratified this Voluntary and Reflective Union but retained all Sovereignty and Power to alter, abolish or, if necessary, to leave that Voluntary Union.
Likewise, the Executive and the Legislative Branches are only allowed a degree of authority and power as it is delegated to them to perform a very specific and narrow set of obligations to the People. Any actions or Legislation beyond those specific and narrow set of obligations and all Three Branches only assume power, or usurp it from the People.
Of course, through the decades the 10th Amendment, like the 9th has been ignored to the point of being effectively neutralized. There are no divided powers, no divided authority, no divided sovereignty; it all rest within the People and is only delegated to the Several States and to the federal government. The Several States and the federal government hold Authority and Power only in Delegated Trust; with that Trust comes all the Responsibility and Duty enumerated within the Compact between the Several States agreed by Concurrent Consent of the People of those Several States.
Finally, in the 9th Amendment these words were penned:
-The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.-
Posted By: Bentree
Date: June 16, 2010 02:26:43 PM
Individual Rights derived from God and instituted in men, with the Freedom to choose. the pursuit of happiness, That is my birthright! and I claim it with all it's inherent responsibilities. You have me fired up, Great stuff!!!
Posted By: Logical Premise
Date: June 16, 2010 08:32:18 PM
That's a lot to read through, but I did so. However, it side-steps a critical question, one I have been asking for quite some time and have yet to get a coherent answer to. And I would like an answer from you, since all of the high-flown language and invocation of Madison fails to answer a critical point.
Originally, the states selected Senators. Prior to the creation of the 17th Amendment, these elections were, at best, highly corrupted. There were deadlocks, charges of abuse and corruption, and the realization that political machines were much easier to operate and conceal at a state level than on a national one (at the time. I do comprehend that NOW the reverse is probably true.) I believe (please correct me if I am incorrect) that in 1866 or 1867 Congress passed some laws to slightly alter the process of how states elected a senator. However, this still did not clear up the problem.
Hang on, folks, for this gets seriously ironic.
Sick of senators like William A. Clark, the notorious "Copper King" who was about as responsive to Montana's interests as a rabid wolf and obtaining his Senate seat through outright bribery. Outraged, the Senate had more than one bill submitted to change Senatorial election to direct voting by the people rather than party-dominated state legislatures. When the Senate refused to do so (snerk snerk, this part's funny) the states called an ARTICLE V convention and pushed through the 17th amendment.
So. I would like to know why you feel that if 2/3rds of the states (and presumably, the citizens) demanded the right to elect their own senators, that the States would DO so if they felt their sovereignty was threatened. There are two answers that spring immediately to mind, to me, but I'd like to hear your answer.
Posted By: Republicae
Date: June 16, 2010 09:48:35 PM
Logical:
The fact of the matter is that very little has changed since the passage of the 17th Amendment in terms of the charges of abuse and corruption, indeed there is much more covert dealings in the Senate now then was ever possible under the former system. Instead of dislodging special interests within the political sphere, it has become much more embedded and entrenched within our government. The changes that have taken place have not, at least in my estimation, been beneficial in any substantial manner. Indeed, what we now have is a predilection toward plebiscitary law-making procedures which tend to pander to the wishes of the majoritarianism, with a particular eye on other people's money or government deficit spending to placate the electorate or at least sectors of the electorate. Senators now must sell their wares to the anonymous pluralities of the electorate and do so at an ever-increasing campaign price-tag. The ratification of the 17th Amendment effectively changed the system of federalism into a system that co-mingles two very distinct Houses of Congressional responsibilities into a morphed legislative platform. The balance of powers thus being far more equalized than under the previous Constitutional divisions.
In terms of the historical setting surrounding the submission and ratification of the 17th Amendment, we must understand the highly energized Progressive Movement of the period which promoted a very direct democratic form of governing instead of that of the Constitutional Republic. The People's Rule was the great cry during that period and it was a popular movement that swept through the entire country, bringing with it several legislative innovations that we now must content with.
If you will notice, there are several hints given within the Constitution that do not indicate the need or desire, necessarily, for either responsiveness or efficiency within our government. In fact, it becomes quite clear that the intention in crafting the Constitution in they way they did was to result in a rather cumbersome government. The Senate, in effect, were ambassadors from the States to the Congress, as such they were to retain a certain distance and even belligerence toward the operational sphere of the federal government.
There was also a very good reason why the Senate would be numerically restrictive, the Framers of the Constitution designed it to be much more deliberative than the House of Representatives. It should be evident that as part of the distinctive natures of both Houses of Congress, that each had a different constituency for a purpose. Today that is no longer the case, the constituency of both Houses of Congress are essentially the same and the effects of that manner in which law is now crafted and how that law is applied effectively nullifies the purposes behind the two distinct Houses of Congress. Today, there is far less control over either House in Congress and it can easily be said that there is far less representation of the People in either House.
-the more multitudinous a representative assembly may be rendered, the more it will partake of the infirmities incident to collective meetings of the people. Ignorance will be the dupe of cunning, and passion the slave of sophistry and declamation. The countenance of the government may become more democratic, but the soul that animates it will be more oligarchic.- Madison
Madison was correct in his assessment and the ratification of the 17th Amendment made our government far more democratic than it would have otherwise been. As such, the consequences of a democratic Senate, combined with the purposeful democratic House of Representatives makes for a far more oligarchic government than was intended. Indeed, the nationalization of the Senate has led to majoritarianism. The problem with every democracy is that the majority always rule to the exclusion of the minority. The reason the Founders purposed a Republic instead of a democracy was to blunt the force and power of the majority through layers of checks and balances to equal out the playing field. The more democratic a political system becomes the more the majority lords over the minority, whether socially or economically. It is strange that people are all for democracy until it actually rules against them and in a democracy, since the majority always rules, the minority will always suffer under the prejudices of the majority. There is a defined tyranny within a democracy and yet so many clamor for such a system because they feel that it will provide them with more voice while just the opposite is true. In every democracy the government system appeals to the material interests of the majority's large voting block.
