The Founders created a federal system in which the relationship between the two levels was weighted in favor of the states. The national level was limited by enumerated powers, delegated by the states. The deal was sealed with the Tenth Amendment which clearly said that if we didn't give it to the federal government in the Constitution or deny a power to the states, then the states keep it.
All this is clear and essentially abandoned in current practice. The federal government has their fumbling fingers in every slice of every pie in our lives. And they continually seek more even while blatantly ignoring what we (the people) are seeking from our government. Is it irreversible?
Well, here's a Georgetown constitutional law prof who offers a solution to get us back on track:
Time For A Repeal Amendment--The Final Check & Balance
Certainly the point he makes about the impact of the 16th and 17th amendments resonates. The democratization of the Senate by directly electing them does remove a significant check on the capability of the federal government to run amok in a frenzy of populist handout programs without regard to the needs or capabilities of the individual states.
Today when we have the full implementation of the omnibus healthcare bill looming and we see state after state appealing to the federal courts for relief or exemptions, the efficacy of a repeal amendment becomes apparent. When a democratic legislative process seems hell-bent on ignoring the will of the states strictly for their own aggrandizement, this seems to be a solution.
1 comment:
I'm afraid that the idea of returning to the original method of Senatorial fulfilment - state appointment - is little more than a starry-eyed academic exercise today. The corruption of some current state governments is absolutely staggering.
Mine has been operating in Pelosi mode for over a hundred years; the leaders of the two houses are absolute dictators of the agenda; the members of the assembly have no say at all - and it is worse when the governor is from the same dominant party. Were these clowns permitted to appoint US Senators, it would be a lifetime appointment.
No, I think a two-term, eight-year maximum (that is, serving one term as a Representative, and one as a Senator - or only half as long, with two terms as a Representative) is about as 'entrenched' as we can stand, today.
Turnover is more important, right now, than the inevitable bad habits of long service.
Post a Comment