Defeating Federalism

The Founding Fathers labored over the question of how to organize the new nation.  The Articles of Confederation had proven wholly inadequate. The assembled delegates in Philadelphia that hot summer of 1787 were charged only with “fixing” the Articles.

It quickly became clear, that attempting a “fix” would not work and thus began the process of creating a whole new document to serve the nation.  It was James Madison who led the way with his drafts of the Constitution, drawing heavily on the earlier one penned for Virginia that included many of the points of a limited government, strict accountability, a republican form and independent and sovereign states (colonies) as the ultimate source of power.  Technically, the “federal” government would be subservient to the states, not the other way around.

So, how did the “switcheroo” come about where the federal government now considers itself “master” of all?

One of the steps overlooked in such discussions is the XVII Amendment which made electing senators a “popular” voting procedure not a state determined one.  According to the Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 3, “The Senate . . . shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote . . .”  Terms of 3 separate and equal classes were established with expiration dates to stagger the future election of senators.  When in session the Vice President was to serve as President of the Senate (without any vote unless to break a tie).  The Senate was empowered to try impeachment (2/3^rds of the members present and voting required for the vote) and provide the President with advice and consent (Art. II, Sec. 2) with respect to treaties, appointments of ambassadors, justices of the Supreme Court and other federal officers.

While the Articles worked fine in the beginning, they soon appeared to have many problems including election of delegates, corruption, bribery and pressure from special interest or political groups. With the expansion of voting rights and more voters, the belief became widespread that senators should be popularly elected the same as representatives.  The significance of federalism and the sovereignty of the individual states was never considered!  Thus, the XVII Amendment was ratified (1913) and we had essentially two houses of representatives, one elected for 2 year terms and the other for 6 years. The federal government was now free to override the sovereignty of the individual states at will.  The careful and thoughtful balance the Founders had incorporated in the guiding document allowing each branch to check on the other two was cast aside.  The more “democratic” approach prevailed and decreasing state independence has continued ever since.

The original concept of government was to have three separate but equal (in terms of power relating one to each of the other two) branches: executive, legislative and judicial.  The legislative was to represent both the people (House) and the States (Senate).  Different election processes were devised to achieve this.  The fact that one of them incurred difficulties and succumbed to “the easy way out” rather than determining how to achieve the purpose intended is perhaps more indicative of the progressive attitude of the times.  The loss of sovereignty of the individual states was far more significant than any benefit that might be derived from having “two” Houses.  The consequences are that we no longer have states fighting for their independence through the Senate.  Rather we have both houses at the public trough seeking more and more federal handouts for which they become beholden to the federal behemoth and accepting its dictates.  Is that what the Founding Fathers envisaged?  That’s not my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com ©Copyright 2015  Hillard W.Welch

Why limit government?

There are lots of reasons but as we have become more “progressive” since about 1900, it would appear that a large segment of our population would rather have an “unlimited” government that provides for their every wish.  For those who disagree with that thought, you might want to check the expansion of the welfare rolls and the number receiving food stamps on a regular basis.

That’s a far cry from what the country was and what the Founding Fathers intended as they created our Constitution.  They believed very firmly in a limited government.   Having been under the thumb of a monarch with absolute power over every aspect of their lives, they wanted none of it.  But, perhaps most important, they were willing to “stand on their own” and “be responsible for their own well-being”.  Maybe “they had no choice, “living in a wilderness” with “savages” on their outskirts.  None of that deterred them from their desire for freedom and liberty.

So, what do we mean when we say a “limited government”?

The constitution was in the nature of a contract.  It was a contract between the new federal government and the individual, independent and sovereign, states (or colonies if you prefer).  It stated that the federal government had certain powers and the states retained everything else (Amendments IX and X).  Both parties were expected to live up to their part of the “bargain”.

The Founders were concerned that a federal government might become too powerful if not constrained by specific obligations and responsibilities as detailed in a constitution. They chose their words carefully, considering all possibilities as they worked to define a document that would withstand the tests of time and the onslaught of individuals (they were not called politicians back then).  While they foresaw the potential for distortions and misinterpretations, they could not possibly conceive of the “penumbra” and “emanations” from their words that would allow or justify the creation of departments and agencies totally unrelated to the clauses of the constitution.  Areas that were not defined such as education, energy, environment, the Federal Reserve, etc. have all come about through subtle interpretations of designated powers.  Many have never been challenged or reviewed by the Supreme Court for their constitutionality. 

What we have witnessed is a “normal” growth of an “organ”.  In this case a government which, by its nature and environment in which it operates, will always seek to grow in ways not known or imagined at the time of creation.  Logically, it might be argued that if a population grows, so should the government responsible for managing its “national” affairs.  Keeping a government “small” and forcing it to remain within described bounds is no mean feat. It cannot be done without leaders of integrity and strong character dedicated to the principles underlying its founding.

That we have not had enough such leaders since about 1900 may be contested by today’s “progressives” and “liberals” but there can be no denying that the present situation is a result of their policies and actions during the past century.  Today, our nation has an unsustainable debt load, an educational system that continues to graduate students of lower academic achievement than their foreign contemporaries, a spreading bureaucracy that issues rules and regulations with little Congressional approval or oversight, and a government that is spreading like an octopus into every corner of individual life and livelihood.

That’s why a limited government was our Founder’s choice and gift!  Have we squandered our inheritance?  That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com ©Copyright, 2015 Hillard W. Welch