THE CITIZEN IN ME WANTS TO KNOW

 

The framers of our constitution sought to create a document that guaranteed the people of the several states direct control over the federal government. They did so through the direct election of representatives to the U.S. House and their vote every forth year to determine the president. The election of Senators to the U.S. Congress was reserved to each of the state legislatures. The goal of this provision was to guarantee that ½ of 1/3 of the federal government would remain responsive to the wishes of the states. In addition to the strict limitations on the scope of the federal government’s authority spelled out in the text of the constitution, the states added the tenth amendment in the bill of rights to reserve all authority not specifically granted to the federal government by the constitution would remain with the states. There is a vast amount of diametrically opposed opinion in the literature debating the validity of federal laws enacted using the “providing for the common good” clause and the “interstate commerce” clause. Progressive politicians argue in general that the above clauses in the constitution effectively eliminate any restrictions upon the federal government’s authority to impose regulations on the states and citizens. Conservative politicians argue that the Supreme Court has erred in finding that the clauses do grant this unlimited authority to Washington D.C. One issue that has never been in debate is that the constitution mandates that all spending measures must originate in the U.S. House of Representatives. The state delegates to the original constitutional convention worried that the more populous states would, through the House of Representatives, be able to exert too much control over the less populous states. The solution that they chose limited each state to two Senators and that the Senate would also need to pass any legislation before it could become law. In an effort to avoid the possibility of an imperial presidency the two chambers of the legislature were granted through a 2/3s majority the right to overturn a presidential veto. Given the great lengths that the framers went to in their effort to spread the federal authority evenly how is it that a mere 40,000 voters can determine the control of the entire federal government? The citizen in me wants to know.

In November of 2010 a plurality of about 40,000 votes reelected Harry Reid to the U.S. Senate. The rules of the Senate do, through preference of the majority and preference born of tenure, grant power over the entire Senate to a single individual, unlike deliberative body designed by the framers. Senator Reid has wielded the power of his office to effectively block all challenges to the Presidents accumulation of power in the executive branch of the government. Even the rights of the minority to block votes in the Senate through use of the filibuster have been swept away by the tyrannical rule of this one Senator. I believe that the actions of Senator Reid make the case better than anything I could say as to why the election of Senators needs to revert back to the process spelled out in the constitution. The 17^th amendment needs to be repealed and along with it an amendment needs to be offered prohibiting the Senate from drafting rules that restrict the states Senators from bringing legislation to a vote.

One final thought pertains to the abuse of Harry Reid’s authority, with the complicity of the then speaker of the house Pelosi, to illegally originate the legislation commonly referred to as Obamacare inclusive of its spending provisions in the Senate.