Yes, my fellow Americans, there can be reason to hope for our republic. It is going to require a change to our beloved Constitution, which won’t be easy, but we can do it if we raise our voices in unison and make our elected officials feel the power of this nation which rightfully belongs to us, its citizens.
“It is a maxim with me, that every man employed in a high office by the people, should from time to time return to them, that he may be in a situation to satisfy them with respect to his conduct and the measures of administration” (Anti-Federalist, Melancton Smith, June 25, 1788 in a speech before the New York State Convention debating the ratification of the Constitution).
Last week I opined that were our Anti-Federalist forefathers to return to our republic today and survey the disgraceful state into which it has fallen as a result of the entrenchment of those occupying seats of power in the House of Representatives and Senate, they would sadly shake their heads and proclaim, “We tried to warn you.” They were all too aware of Lord Acton’s maxim, “All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Although our Congress and President have yet to obtain absolute power (though their insidious tentacles are stretching out in that direction), the first half of that statement is precisely what the Anti-Federalists attempted to persuade their Federalist brethren as the reason for the need to institute term limitations in the newly proposed Constitution. Consider the statement made by the Anti-Federalist writer Brutus in his essay published on November 29, 1787 regarding what the people had a right to expect regarding the character of those who would serve in the new Congress:
“They should be satisfied that those who represent them are men of integrity, who will pursue the good of the community with fidelity; and will not be turned aside from their duty by private interest, or corrupted by undue influence; and that they will have such a zeal for the good of those whom they represent, as to excite them to be diligent in their service;….”
To this sentiment Madison and the other Federalists readily agreed; yet they went further in that they actually believed such men would step forward to be the leaders of the new nation. In fact, in The Federalist Papers Number 54, Madison went so far as to state the exact opposite of what the Anti-Federalists had expressed in their writings:
“A few of the members, as happens in all such assemblies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent reelections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt will they be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them. This remark is no less applicable to the relation which will subsist between the House of Representatives and the Senate.”
This is an interesting statement and admission by one of the leading Federalists of that day. First, he admits to the likelihood that there will be those who will be reelected repeatedly and will hold office for a considerable time. However, we now see his error in judgment was in that he only perceived that such would true in the case of “a few of the members.” Today instead we see men and women elected over and over again until they have spent the larger part of their adult lives in either the House of Representatives, the Senate, or both, and that the “few” are those who are new to those bodies. Furthermore, Madison was of the opinion in direct opposition to that of the Anti-Federalists that I have quoted in the previous three posts, that there was a greater danger of the newly elected officials to fall into the traps of corruption than those who had been in service for a greater period of time (although he admitted that “perhaps” those long in service might be tempted to avail themselves of the perks of their offices).
In stark contrast to Madison was the opinion of the Anti-Federalist from Massachusetts, John DeWitt, who wrote the following in the Boston American Herald on November 5, 1787:
“It cannot be doubted at this day by any men of common sense, that there is a charm in politics. That persons who enter reluctantly into office become habitated, grow fond of it, and are loath to resign it. They feel themselves flattered and elevated and are apt to forget their constituents, until the time returns that they again feel the want of them. They uniformly exercise all the powers granted to them, and ninety-nine in a hundred are for grasping at more. It is this passionate thirst for power, which has produced different branches to exercise different departments and mutual checks upon those branches….
Thus habituated to power, and living in the daily practice of granting favors and receiving solicitations, he may hold himself completely independent of the people, and at the same time ensure his election. If there remains even a risque, the blessed assistance of a little well-distributed money, will remove it….
“… but some of the members, perhaps a major part, will hold their seats during their lives. We see it daily in our own Government, and we see it in every Government we are acquainted with, however many the cautions, and however frequent the elections.”
As I have asked in the previous posts, I now repeat – as you survey those who populate our Congress today, who “got it right” – Madison and the Federalists, or the Anti-Federalists? I believe the answer is obvious, and thus leads to the question, what are we to do now? How can we fix this deplorable situation? This question and problem have but three possible answers and solutions:
- The ballot box;
- Amending the Constitution; or
- Armed rebellion.
I have listed these three options in the order of preference and ease of accomplishment. The first is not only the most preferable of these options but also the one argued for by the Federalists and the option that was set in place within the Constitution. Plainly stated, we should educate ourselves and elect those men and women during these “frequent elections” who are of a mind not to go to Washington to carve out a long career for themselves, but rather who desire to serve for a reasonable period of time and then to relinquish their seat of power to one to follow after them. As easy as this sounds we know that such is not as easy as it appears. Today, elections turn on “sound bites”, cleverly produced and polished television and radio advertisements, having the “right connections” with the “right people”, and being given favored exposure by the media. Not enough of our fellow citizens put forth the effort to delve into the matters troubling our republic and the background of those putting forth their agendas to solve these problems to make election-imposed term limitations a likelihood.
Since this first option has proven to be a disappointment to keeping men and women from becoming the aristocratic body that the Anti-Federalists foreboded, the second option is to put in place the very term limits as a part of the Constitution for which they pleaded during the ratification debates. Making such amendments was provided for in Section V of the Constitution, and as was expressed by George Washington in his farewell address at the end of his second term as our nation’s first president in 1796, it is our right to do so: “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government.”
As the debate raged during the Constitutional Convention over how to amend the proposed new Constitution, a compromise was reached when Madison set forth the wording of what was incorporated as these opening words of Article V:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress:”
In reading this it becomes readily apparent of just how daunting a task it is to amend our Constitution, and such is how it ought to be. Since 1789 over 5,000 bills have been proposed to amend this magnificent document of liberty, yet only thirty-three have ever made it through this gauntlet of ratification, and one of them, the eighteenth, was subsequently repealed by the twenty-first. The fact that the eighteenth amendment dealing with the prohibition of alcoholic beverages proved to be unwise and therefore in need of rejection, shows just how sobering a task it is to undertake the amending of the Constitution. Such a step must only be taken after very careful and due deliberation of the situation that is sought to be remedied and that all other means of resolution have proven themselves to be unfruitful and impotent. Such, I think, is where we find ourselves today in the matter of the limitation on the terms of our Representatives and Senators.
That being the case, then, how does this Article empower us to accomplish this task? There are two basic approaches to the process. One is for Congress to initiate a proposal for amendment, the other, the clause which was inserted due to pressure brought to bear by the Anti-Federalist George Mason, allows for the states to call for a Constitutional Convention (like the one that framed the Constitution) for the express purpose of amending it.
In the first instance the process begins when a member (or a consortium of members) of either the House or Senate proposes a bill in their respective chamber and persuades a minimum of two-thirds of their colleagues in both bodies to approve the resolution. As we have seen most recently, acquiring a two-thirds approval by one body, much less both, is indeed a daunting task – especially when what is being proposed is a limitation of the terms of those who must vote in favor of it! Once this hurdle has been overcome, the proposed amendment is then sent to the all of the States of the Union for them to approve. The states have the option to either vote in favor of the proposal by their state legislatures, or to approve it by means of a state convention called for that purpose. Only when three-fourths of the states have given their consent does the amendment then become part of the Constitution. Although the Article authorizing this process does not impose a time limit, it has been the practice in recent times for Congress to set a deadline for the states to either approve or reject a proposed amendment once Congress has approved it. You may recall that this was true in the case of the so-called “Equal Rights Amendment” which was approved by Congress and sent to the states on March 22, 1972 but with a seven year time limit for ratification, which it failed to meet.
The other option is even more daunting and has never been successfully achieved since the adoption of the Constitution, which is to require Congress to call for a Constitutional Convention whenever two-thirds of the state legislatures call upon them to do so. This is not as desirable of an option for those of us who are “Strict Constitutional Originalists”, as it is unclear as to the limits that such a convention would operate under. Scholarship is divided over whether such a convention would have to be limited to just a consideration of the grievances to be addressed that prompted the call for the convention, or whether such a convention would be open to any and all causes that delegates would wish to promote. If such a convention were to be an open one, then there is no limit as to the mischief that could come about and the harm that could result from unwise changes to the Constitution (as evidenced again in the hastily passed eighteenth amendment).
The only other option open to us is the least desirable of all for it is the option of last resort and the most difficult of all, as it would involve much harm, upheaval and even bloodshed. This option is for citizens who have had enough of the oppression wrought by these fascist leaders to rise up and forcibly remove them from office in order to return us to the foundation laid by both our Federalist and Anti-Federalist forefathers. That we have the unalienable right to do so was expounded by Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence in as much as it served to justify our nation’s first revolution against tyranny:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Yet this right as expressed by Jefferson is the cause for a tension between our two precious composites that make up the bedrock of our republic – the Declaration and the Constitution. I say this because in Article I, Section 8 the Constitution counteracts this right:
“The Congress shall have Power to…provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions….”
Clearly, an attempt to require our elected officials in Congress to honor their oath to uphold the Constitution or face removal by force would amount to an insurrection, and the Declaration notwithstanding, would be cause for the armed forces of the nation to be brought to bear against those so trying to restore the liberty and freedom promised by these two documents, resulting in much pain and suffering.
That we one day may be left with only this last alternative no one may tell, but in order to not find ourselves in this distressful and desperate situation it is imperative that we exert as much effort and energy as possible with the first two of the three options I have outlined. That this will not be an easy task I readily confess, as we are asking those who have become drunk with their own prestige, power and importance to willingly remove themselves from such a position by approving a bill that would amend the Constitution to limit their terms of office. Our efforts and energy then must be directed at bringing as much constant pressure upon those in Congress to do just that, and if they resist, to seek out and find those among us who would be so willing to approve such a measure and elect them to office.
As I stated in the opening of this essay, yes, there is hope for change – a change back to our founding principles by instituting term limitations upon those elected to Congress, but this hope can only be realized if all who love freedom and liberty and our great republic will stand united and follow through on the approach I outlined above. The clock is ticking my fellow Americans and the time for action is now. May God help our efforts and favor our beloved republic once more with the unalienable gifts of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
-Epaminondas
No comments:
Post a Comment