Revisiting The 17th Amendment

September 24, 2009 by mattbenchener 5 Comments

This post is written by guest author Edward Mahee. Mr. Mahee has an extensive legal background, and is an emerging conservative thinker. This is his sixth posting for the site.

At the beginning of the 20th Century, the Progressive movement (the forerunner to modern day liberalism) was at the zenith of its influence in the United States.  The group was so powerful that it was able to have two Constitutional amendments ratified in 1913: The 16th Amendment, which empowered Congress to lay and collect taxes on the income of persons, from whatever source derived, without regard to apportionment among the States and without regard to a census; and the 17th Amendment, which gave the power to elect members of the United States Senate directly to citizens.

Since its ratification, the 16th Amendment has been scrutinized and the consequences of that amendment, good and (mostly) bad have been analyzed extensively.  Much less attention has been given to the consequences of the 17th Amendment. US_Senate_Session_Chamber

This amendment, while  seemingly innocuous, removed a significant portion of the separation of powers the founders established in the Constitution.  In short, the 17th Amendment has resulted in the heavy consolidation of power by the federal government at the expense of the States.  The result has been a massive loss of personal liberty in the name of “enhanced democracy.”

Originally, the Constitution provided that senators would be chosen by state legislatures.  It was intended that the States (through senators) and individuals (through representatives) would both have representation in the federal government.  The concept was that the U.S., as a union of sovereign states, would structure the federal government such that each state would have an equal voice.  The purpose was to have several sovereignties working together—the states with each other, and the states with the federal government.  The result would be the diffusion of sovereign power between and among the States and the federal government.

The impetus behind this structure was the idea that states have interests that may, and often do, conflict with federal priorities on a wide variety of issues.  They have different views on business regulation, social policy, environmental policy, and other issues which not only conflict with the federal government, but may conflict with each other.  That was intentional.  By diffusing power among various sovereignties, there was less risk of consolidated political power, a risk which the founders rightly viewed as the greatest threat to personal liberty.  Political power is the power to coerce, but the more it is directed against itself, the less it can be directed at individuals.

The system worked well for 125 years.  States had a strong voice in the federal government, and as a consequence, the federal government’s ability to coerce the States and individuals was significantly curtailed.  After all, no senator could support a policy which would expand federal power at the expense of his State government and hope to get re-elected. 

The Progressives, however, aggressively moved to change the makeup of the Senate.  Their position was that the Senate was unable to act on behalf of the people because its members were not accountable to the people.  The Progressives viewed the Senate as an unaccountable and undemocratic body. 

While that may have been true, it is also beside the point. The purpose of the Constitution was not to provide for democracy.  The purpose of the Constitution was to establish a government for the United States that respected the sovereignty of the States and the rights of the people.  One of the results of this core purpose was a form of representative democracy, and the method of choosing members of the Senate was an important part of that balance. 

But, the Progressives thought they knew better and pushed through the 17th Amendment, disrupting the balance intended by the Constitution. Because of the enactment of the 17th Amendment, States no longer have any real voice in the making or implementing of federal policy.  States, rather then acting as competing sovereignties, have degenerated to being appendages of the federal government.  While nominally sovereign, the federal government bullies them into carrying out its policies lest they be deprived of their share of federal money.  The federal government is free to perpetually increase its power over the States since there is no longer any effective to check to such growth within the federal government.

As a result, the federal government continues to gather increasing amounts of power.  What the authors of the Constitution were explicitly trying to avoid has come to pass.  The federal government is now free to control states and to regulate citizens with impunity.  Lobbyists are free to concentrate their efforts on the federal government, which is the only source of real power. 

With centralization of power comes the destruction of personal liberty, and without an internal check, the federal government will continue taxing and regulating.  The people of this country lost an important check to the growth of federal power over them when, in the name of democracy, we decided to elect our own senators.  An ironic result, but true nonetheless.  Perhaps, it is time the 17th Amendment is revisited and repealed.

-Edward Mahee for TruPolitics.net

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , ,

Something Serious is Happening

September 17, 2009 by mattbenchener 4 Comments

This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 9/20/09. You can read the newspaper version online here, or check out the print column each week.

Something serious is going on in this country. For the first time in recent memory, Americans are debating the fundamental role of government, the importance of Constitutional precedent, and the nature of foundational American principles. There is a clear dividing line being drawn between liberal and conservative ideology: One believes in large, redistributive government that places moral imperative on equality of outcomes; the other believes in small, limited government, that emphasizes personal liberty and self-reliance. The result of this struggle will define the future and direction of 9.12 Marchthe world’s most powerful nation.

Despite the gravity of our times, however, discourse on both sides has devolved into partisan rhetoric. Consider the following line-up of stories from the past six months, all of which received significant media attention: 1. President Obama is not a U.S. Citizen; 2. Conservatives opposed to President Obama are racists; 3. President Obama is a “secret Muslim” trying to ruin the country; 4. Healthcare town hall attendees are either uneducated, irrational hicks, or rich, white, hired political operatives (a strange dichotomy); 5. Tea party attendees are radical, right-wing extremists that will soon attempt to overthrow the government. I could go on.

The American political landscape has been marred by hyperbolic and irrational rhetoric for far too long, and it comes at the expense of prudent policy discussions. Now, perhaps more than ever, it threatens the legitimacy of fundamental and critical differences between liberals and conservatives.

July was rife with coverage questioning the legitimacy of President Obama’s citizenship.  So called “birthers” claimed that President Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and was therefore ineligible to serve as President. They called for his immediate impeachment, buying into a watered-down conspiracy theory.

A few weeks ago, President Obama announced he would address the nation’s schoolchildren with a message of hard work and perseverance, stressing the importance of education. Parents, talk show hosts, and writers across the country rallied against the airing of the message, claiming they didn’t want their children to be “indoctrinated.” Multiple presidents have addressed the nation’s schoolchildren. Did those opposed also rally against Ronald Reagan’s speech to schoolchildren in 1988? Not to mention all of this occurred during a complex, impactful, and critical debate surrounding the future of America’s health care system.

Now, Democrats like Jimmy Carter and political pundits like Chris Matthews are claiming that opposition to President Obama is a product of racism. It’s a failed and disturbing attempt to delegitimize the swell of philosophical opposition to the President’s radical agenda. It is not only embarrassing, but transparently defensive. Michael Steele, the African-American chair of the RNC put it best: ““Voicing opposition to the president’s policy proposals is not being a racist. It is being an American…Injecting race into the debate over critical issues facing American families does not create jobs, reform our health care system or reduce the growing deficit. It only divides Americans rather than uniting us to find solutions to challenges facing our nation.”

The problem with such partisan, hyperbolic rhetoric from either side is that it shifts attention away from the vital issues facing the nation. President Bush was constantly attacked as “an evil tyrant,” “right-wing extremist,” and “religious fundamentalist.” It came at the expense of important, lasting discussions of international sovereignty, fiscal responsibility, and state security.President Obama

Many simply wrote off conservatism as tried and failed under President Bush, and embraced his successor, a man of sharp liberal policy. But President Bush’s own policies belied true conservative values of small government and fiscal prudence—his administration expanded government programs, deeply widened agency bureaucracy, and spent more than any administration since WWII. Yet these issues were patently ignored.

The same is happening in many circles with regard to President Obama. Saying he is not a United States citizen or comparing his health program to Hitler’s Germany diverts attention away from what is most important. Right now, in a defining time for the direction of our country, we cannot afford sideways energy.

Moreover, when we embrace partisan irrationality, we lose sight of what is best for the country. The irony of President Obama’s “indoctrination speech” to our public schools is that it was a powerfully conservative message of self-reliance, perseverance, and individual responsibility. I would want my children to have seen it. Those at the 9/12 march on Washington, the nationwide tea parties, and healthcare town halls expressed a deep, passionate patriotism firmly rooted in Constitutional values. I would want my national leaders to have been there.

It’s time we recognize that liberalism is a philosophy predicated on moral duty, communal provision, and societal responsibility. Conservatism offers a wholly different view of government—small, limited, and based on individual liberty through personal responsibility. We must learn to debate on the truth of each philosophy, or else we ignore the fundamental thought that shapes our nation. There is an important and stark difference between liberalism and conservatism, a divide which must be addressed if we hope to guide the country to lasting prosperity.

-Matt Benchener is the founder of TruPolitics.net and is the Republican candidate for Newtown Township Supervisor. Learn more at Benchener09.com

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

The Danger of Political Royalty

September 13, 2009 by mattbenchener 2 Comments

King George III

King George III

This post is written by guest author Edward Mahee. Mr. Mahee boasts an extensive legal background, and is an emerging conservative thinker. This is his fifth posting for the site.

In Episode 4 of the HBO miniseries “John Adams,” based on David McCullough’s best-selling book, there is a powerful scene where John Adams is addressed by Great Britain’s King George III.  At the end of the scene, the British king remarks that he prays the United States will not suffer too much for want of a monarchy.  Mr. Adams responds that the United States would endeavor to answer those prayers.

Americans have always held themselves as examples of how free people can govern themselves without the need for an established and paternalistic class of elites. We have long demonstrated that citizens can govern themselves successfully and, as a result, have turned a backwater at the edge of the world into the greatest, most powerful nation-state in recorded history. In America, the citizen, not political royalty, has always come first–it forms the foundation for a democratic republic and national prosperity through liberty.

However, there are many still enamored with the idea of princely power, great men and women ruling over peons. We, of course, do not have a monarchy, or established permanent ruling class. Some would have it quite differently, embracing the idea of political royalty and heavy top-down governance.

This became strikingly and disturbingly clear during the recent passing of Senator Edward Kennedy. There are many who wish to use the Kennedy family as a kind of royalty by proxy.  We are admonished to be reverent and to pay special homage to the Kennedy clan. 

One such example of this came in an op-ed published in the Washington Post on August 28, written by Eugene Robinson titled “Ted Kennedy: An Eternal Prince” soon after Sen. Kennedy’s passing.  The attitude toward the Kennedys held by many in elite circles is well represented in Mr. Robinson’s piece.  He wrote “Ted Kennedy was the youngest of nine children in a family whose ruthless patriarch was intent on building an American dynasty.  The old man, business titan Joseph Kennedy, was a king.  Ted’s older brother Jack, the handsome young president, was a king. The other two brothers, Joe and Robert, were slated for the throne but died too soon.  Ted made a run for president…but was not meant to win…he was the eternal prince.”

That language is unnerving.  The elder Joseph Kennedy and his children worked hard cultivating the image of the Kennedys as a kind of American royalty.  His personal motivation was understandable; the motivation of so many others to buy into it, lock, stock and barrel is not. 

The telltale mark of royalty or nobility is that they are people set apart.  By their very nature, they are different kinds of people as a matter of law.  America was founded in direct opposition of that notion.  It was founded on the notion that, while we may admire some, we will not put any family or group over and above to govern us.  The glamour of royalty is seductive, but we would do well to remember the warning of William Graham Sumner who said, presciently, “the constitutional republic, however, does not call upon men to play the hero; it only calls upon them to do [their] duty under the laws and the constitution, in any position in which they may be placed, and no more.” 

Members of the Kennedy family have been trying to avoid this admonition.  They wish to be viewed as heroes—their status depends on it.  The retort from those who support the Kennedys’ dynastic aspirations is that they do so much good and are committed to service.  That may be true; doing good and doing right is the obligation of every American.  That does not mean, however, that we ought to have a family overseeing us, and it certainly does not mean that ordinary people should submit to increased taxes and regulation for the Kennedys’ good intentions.

Ted Kennedy was in many ways a remarkable man.  But Americans must be careful not to embrace the celebrity, or royalty, of any family or leader. If we do, we risk losing our identity as self-reliant, free, and strong individuals. The citizen and its Republic must always come first.

-Edward Mahee for TruPolitics.net

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , ,

Abandoning The Partisan Paradigm

September 10, 2009 by mattbenchener 2 Comments

TruPolitics.net welcomes guest author Saylor Smith. Mr. Smith was an educator for over 40 years, and is the author of two novels. He currently resides in Eugene, Oregon. This is his second posting for the site.

Donkey ElephantI disliked the us vs. them mentality that dominated American life for most of the last quarter of the twentieth century, and I’m disgusted to note that it continues unabated here in the first decade of the new millennium. “We’re Number One” has become the most over-used cliché of all-time, applied in virtually every aspect of life, from the rivalries of high school forensics teams to the battles between major league baseball, basketball and football teams, to the overblown advertising claims of beer, soda pop, automobile and antacid pill manufacturers. Now, I’m sorry to report, that self-important attitude has begun to shape the growing political contentiousness between conservatives and liberals.

It was not too long ago that the minority party considered itself the “loyal opposition.” I always thought that had a nice ring to it: loyal even when opposed — we are, it suggested, all patriots here. There was not a hint of one-ups-man-ship in the presentation of the possessor of such an honest political position. The majority party representative knew that his or her position of ascendancy was tenuous at best and that time and the vagaries of modern life would undoubtedly reverse the parties’ relative positions all too soon. The minority party representative knew to have patience — and to be consistently, if nothing else, loyal.

We were, these men and women understood, in the life struggle together, Americans all, with many more natural impulses to unite us than to divide us.

Where and when did this mutual understanding change? Some might blame it on the “liberal” 1960s, the age of Medicare, Vietnam protests, Civil Rights legislation, free love, hippies, women’s liberation and political assassinations. The other side might point to the 1980s, which included the fall of the Berlin Wall,  Iran-Contra, “Star Wars,” the invasion of Grenada, construction of the Vietnam Memorial, and, of course, Reaganomics and the resulting deregulation of corporate America. These were decades when critical issues began to divide citizens in dramatic ways. Whereas Democrats and Republicans had always managed to maintain civil debate on the largest questions before the country, the new liberal vs. conservative fracas deteriorated into contentiousness that often crossed the line into vitriol and vicious hyperbole.

Today, sharpened by the hate speech of talk radio, the language of civilized debate no longer applies on the political stage in America. As standard operating procedure, politicians and their supporters insist on demonizing opponents. A political adversary today is not merely wrong on the issues; he or she is a danger to our way of life, un-American, a supporter of the enemy — a traitor. There is no “loyal opposition” any more; a fellow Congressman or Senator of the other party is no longer a colleague to be respected; he or she is a virtual enemy to be denigrated and defeated. Members of the U.S. Congress seem to spend more of their time writing or speaking against their political opponents than they do in legislating for the benefit of their constituents.

Now voters are moving in greater and greater numbers to change their registration from Democrat or Republican to Independent, a direct result, I would argue, of this unreasoning chauvinism by members of the so-called Right and Left. When an almost unknown Illinois state senator gave a speech at the 2004 Democratic convention reminding us that we live not in “conservative” America or “liberal” America, but the United States of America, most of us applauded the sentiment in the hope that “us vs. them” could become “all of us together.”

Democrats are not better than Republicans; they agree on many fundamental American truths, including this partial list: 1. That the U.S. Constitution offers us the best road map for the future; 2. That each of us must bear responsibility for his or her own actions; 3. That war is unconscionable and that we will commit to it only as a last resort; 4. That we must unite to take care of the least among us; 5. That the federal government must, as must each of its citizens, ultimately balance its economic books; 6. That the three branches of the federal government must retain equal levels of power and authority; and 7. That a strong national defense establishment is critical to provide protection for the people of the nation.

It seems highly likely that separate, divisive political parties have outlived their usefulness in the United States of America. We need politicians at all levels who have, as their constant goal, the establishment of measures that will benefit all of our citizens; politicians who will not weigh issues on a conservative vs. liberal scale but rather on a humanity scale; politicians who refuse to vote against their own consciences to assuage their party leaders.

I worked for a high school administrator who asked his teachers one question when they proposed program changes or requested funds for the implementation of new ideas in the classroom: “How will it benefit students?” He didn’t care if it was a “liberal” idea or a “conservative” idea. We should initiate a similar measurement tool in examining each federal proposal: “How will it benefit citizens?” Then, perhaps we can get out of our own way, forget the labels and make good things happen.

-Guest author Saylor Smith for TruPolitics.net

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , ,

Why I’m Conservative

September 1, 2009 by mattbenchener 5 Comments

This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 9/6/09. You can read the online newspaper version here, or check out the print column each week.

My father grew up in a poor section of Southern California, a place where few made it out, and most followed in the footsteps of their parents. He was the son of immigrants, both uneducated, and was often made fun of for his accent. He quickly learned to fight—sometimes for protection, many times for pride. His father was a bus driver, drank heavily, and gambled on weekends; his mother sometimes worked as a seamstress.

My grandfather never attended my dad’s sports games, and was hardly around when my father grew up. For some reason, however, he left one lasting impression: He told my dad, “You need to go to college.” Determined to make it out, my dad decided to push himself to fulfill his father’s desire. Through hard work, he became a starter on three varsity sports teams, graduated at the top of his class, and was eventually inducted into his high school hall of fame.Statue of Liberty

He was accepted into UCLA—he made it out.

Years later, after a few twists and turns in life, my dad again found himself at the bottom. He had gone to seminary to become a pastor, following a passion for his faith. Two years out of seminary, however, the church where he was associate pastor fell on hard financial times. Attendance dwindled, and my dad was laid off.

He had a two year-old daughter, my sister, and was struggling to keep the family afloat. Then he had a defining moment: Standing in a grocery store holding my sister, he picked up a piece of fruit and piece of cheese. He couldn’t afford to buy both. He looked at my sister, and back at his hands and said, “I’m never going to have to make this decision again.” And he never did.

In order to make some money, and despite the fact he had a Master’s degree, he took the first job he could find—as a door-to-door vacuum salesman. He outworked everyone in the company, and was quickly the top salesman for the region. He still has the trophy (a gold man in a suit holding a vacuum) as a reminder of how he got to where he is. For his performance, he was promoted to office manager.

His management experience opened the door for his next job as a manager at construction company Ingersoll-Rand. From there he was offered a job at Levi Strauss & Co., helping run the credit and collections department. He eventually worked his way up to Vice President, and led the development of the first electronic supply chain management system for the industry. After 20 years at Levi’s, he became President and COO of UCCnet, an offshoot of the company that created the bar code. For his work, he was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in 2001 by VICS, a national organization of senior industry executives. Throughout, he appeared in major business publications like Forbes magazine.

———

Growing up, let’s just say I wasn’t allowed not to work hard. Excellence was more than a value, it was an expectation. If I failed, it was never going to be for lack of hard work.

In large part, my dad believed, success was a direct outcome of the work you put in. He is living proof that it doesn’t matter where you start, only where you choose to end up. And that is the beautiful thing about our country.

The American Dream is that anyone can become almost anything through hard work and personal industry. Our founders saw profound beauty in “Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” and that pairing was not accidental. Liberty means you are free to choose your own outcomes; pursuit means government will not keep you from it.

And yet, with growing tax rates and expansive government, some now desire a massive redistribution of wealth. They couch their ideas in “fairness,” that somehow those who have more than others did not work for what they have. They clamor for government handouts and bailouts, forgetting that in order to pay for some, government must necessarily take from others. They place their hope in government, shedding notions of American individualism and strength. 

There are often stark differences in where people begin; there does not have to be in where people end up. That is a product of choice. Not everyone will attain to success, and many will simply give up. But that is the reality of a free society. The beautiful reality of freedom is that anyone can succeed; the harsh reality is that some will not.

The alternative is a government controlled society, where liberty is distained for its “unequal” results. That experiment has failed thousands of times before, yet many still believe utopia is attainable. They fail to recognize that their grasp for perfection comes at the expense of liberty. Conservatism places great faith in man; liberalism places great faith in government.

I am deeply patriotic because of the opportunities that our country, through freedom and liberty, afforded my father. That legacy demands we preserve the foundational principles that have, and always will, bring us such great strength.

-Matt Benchener is the founder of TruPolitics.net and a candidate for Newtown Township Supervisor. Learn more at www.benchener09.com.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,