Congressional Responsibility?

Congressional Responsibility?

Before taking a seat in the Congress of the United States, all elected officials are required to take an “oath of office” either swearing or affirming that they will faithfully “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution of the United States of America. This is true for both Representatives and Senators, the latter being appointed originally by their respective state legislatures (Art. I, Sec. 3). More on this point a bit later.

Recognizing that in the beginning this oath or affirmation had some substance and meaning, it now raises a very important set of questions.

1. What are the legitimate responsibilities of those elected to Congress? Do they represent only themselves and all the perks they can accrue?

2. Are they supposed to “bring home the bacon” to their state’s voters or treasury? There is no apparent clause in the Constitution that would authorize this. If not, is the taking of money from the public treasury for one state’s desires (or to enhance an elected official’s chances of re-election) legal? Is it Constitutional? Or is it a form of “legalized theft” which isn’t challenged? Every state has had its share of politicians who use such approaches to claim “how much they have done for their local constituents.” Is that what it is all about? He who gets the mostest wins the next election?

3. Were the states considered “sovereign” entities in their own right before they ratified the Constitution? History says, “yes”! Did they surrender that sovereignty completely when they ratified the Constitution? History would say, “no”, because the Constitution very carefully spelled out the limitations of the powers and authority being surrendered or granted to a federal (not national) government. While modern politicians tend to claim otherwise, they are on very shaky ground for there is nothing in the Constitution to support their position.

4. Who represents the states and their particular concerns as a consequence of the 17th Amendment which authorized the “popular” election of senators from the individual states? Representation of the states as sovereign entities was a critical element in the debates at the Constitutional Convention. It was only when Roger Sherman of Connecticut proposed the compromise of two houses, one representing the people (The House) and the other representing the states (The Senate) did an agreement result.

5. Did the IXth and Xth Amendments reinforce this concept? Reread those two amendments and decide for yourself if their purpose was to insure the independence and sovereignty of both the individual states and the people respectively. Of note is the fact that they underscore the “limited powers” granted to the federal government.

6. Does Amendment XIV justify imposing numerous federal mandates on the individual states? Only a distorted reading of the amendment can lead to that interpretation. The Amendment was passed following the Civil War and it is important to recognize that its sole purpose was to assure that all those who were newly considered “citizens of the United States” received equal justice before the law, regardless of the state wherein they resided. It was clearly the intent of the founders and those who followed to acknowledge the idea of state sovereignty. The joining together in a “federation” was to allow better management of the growing nation, both internationally and domestically.

In retrospect, it appears that Congress has abdicated its responsibilities. It has succumbed to the heady taste of power with its attendant abuses. As Lord Acton wrote in 1887, “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Would anyone care to argue the point that today much of our political cadre is corrupt? How many can you count who stand by their oath of office and vote within Constitutional bounds?