|
Responsibility #91
To the People of the United States of America:
7th postscript, February 1995, Structural Security. In creating the structure (the Constitution) of the United States of America, our founding fathers discarded the teetering one strut limitations, of the Articles of Confederation government. They did not rely on a wobbly two legged, nor an easily displaced three limbed building. These extraordinary architects chose a never seen before, novel design concept. The United States of America would be a solid edifice, consisting of four sturdy columns. The big bad wolf, any big bad wolf, could huff and puff, but it could not blow the house down.
However there was a foreseen danger. The four columns had separate functions to perform, and each column was of a quite different configuration, each tailored to its particular raison d'etre. If one or more of the columns were to expand or contract or flex, the structure would be conditionally unstable. The proposed replacement government could prove to be as ineffective, and as dangerous to the security of the nation, as had been the loose confederation of independent States under the Articles.
So these far-sighted, master artificers conceived of trusses between and among the four columns. The trusses would assure that the columns remained separate, free to perform their individual functions, and prevented from overlapping and disruptive movement. The four columns are identified as the legislative Congress, the executive Presidency, the Judiciary, and the most intimate functionaries for the people--the States. The trusses are, of course, the checks and balances.
Alas! The best laid plans of these eighteenth century patriots can be, have been, and are today, neglected, circumvented, abused, and usurped. As a result, the Constitution of the United States of America is sadly in need of reform, and/or enforcement. Let us look at a few examples, evident with the 104th Congress, and during the recent months of the waning term of the 42nd President.
The Republicans in the 104th Congress (as in a number of past Congresses) are pushing the Line Item Veto power for the President. Indeed, with the internal malpractices (and the against-the-intent-of-the-Constitution, power-wielding, committee system) of the Congress, it would likely be an improvement. But it is neither necessary, nor a solution to the source of the problem.
The Constitution provides the President with an adequate power, to veto for cause a "pure" bill, every element of which has been constructed, and adequately subjected to the one member/one effective vote, in each House of the Congress--the intent and essence of the Constitution.
The pity is that a third column, of the Constitutional structure, has had the checks and balances power to challenge these long existent malpractices, and malorganization in the Congress. As the foundational unit closest to the people, the States individually and in concert, could have stopped the "pork" and any other sneak provisions in any Congressional bill, before or after its enactment. It was anticipated that they would by Publius in 1787-88.
James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 55: "I am unable to conceive that the State legislatures, which must feel so many motives to watch, and which possess so many means of counteracting, the federal legislature, would fail either to detect or to defeat a conspiracy of the latter against the liberties of their common constituents."
But until recently, the States had been beaten down so much by the other three columns, particularly by actions of the Supreme Court, that they had ceded much of their powers. This had been foreseen, by an anonymous anti-federalist Brutus, in a 1788 essay opposing ratification of the Constitution (see Responsibility #23). He wrote: "The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the Constitution: I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the individual states."
Had the States the gumption, and would devote the resources, they could have long since limited the malgovernance of the federal government. Two of the powers that they have not ceded are: (1) the force of State legislature resolutions, on their Senators and Representatives in the Congress; and, (2) the right of original jurisdiction (direct access to the federal Supreme Court).
Before the fact, each State legislature can ferret out pending Congressional bills (or elements thereof), which their constituents would oppose; then pass resolutions to that effect; and advise (direct?) their Washington representatives, to vote accordingly in the Congress.
After the fact, upon discovery of undesirable features of laws passed by Congress, by State legislature resolutions, they can direct their Senators and Representatives to introduce and vote repeal bills. They can put full force and effect into the States' column, by taking a leaf from the thirteen Colonies of 1775-6. Establish versions of "Committees of Correspondence", to coordinate inter-States deliberation and simultaneous passage, of resolutions sufficient for majority effect in Congress.
Use original jurisdiction to test the justice of the federal Supreme Court. A number of States can sue other States that have received "pork", by means of surreptitious acts, permissible by the malpractices and malorganizations of the Congress.
With grit, We the People, through States' actions, can break the backs of these shortcomings of the federal government. At the same time the spines will be broken of the Political Action Committees, lobbyists, and other special interest groups, who buy their influence through campaign contributions, or marches on Washington.
There is hope. The States have now begun to show their mettle. A number of border States have sued the federal government, for not carrying the burdens caused by the presence of illegal aliens--unquestionably a federal responsibility. The States are rebelling against federal mandates, that are imposed by federal legislation (or executive agencies' directives), without accompanying federal funding. More importantly, the States are beginning to act in concert.
A "Conference of the States" has been proposed, tentatively scheduled for October 1995. Organizers are asking State legislatures, to pass resolutions to attend the Conference. On Valentine's Day, Arizona became the 10th State to authorize a delegation. Approval of 26 States is required to kick off the Conference. The purpose of the Conference is to "create a mechanism for states to battle the federal government on issues involving states' rights".
A number of State legislators were reluctant to authorize participation in the Conference. They "warned that the conference would fail if it became partisan, if it became linked with any single group or personality, or it was tied to a divisive issue such as abortion, gun control or prayer in schools". Others feared that such a conference might go too far, even ending up as a Constitutional Convention.
HALLELUJAH! Isn't that where we are? The Governors and State legislators are responsible for the security of the States. The State issues, that have triggered the proposed Conference, are merely manifestations of the fact, that the security of each State is inseparable from solutions to the structural, moral, economic, domestic, and international insecurities of the nation as a whole.
The danger is that the politicians at the State levels, also being Republicans and Democrats, may put party above State. The proposed Convention is a means to by-pass the "pork", "patronage", and "power" life-bloods of the failed two-party system. We the People can hope, aye require, that the Conference of the States be the counterpart, to the Annapolis Convention of 1786. That "failed", last previous meeting of the States, led to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. What a brilliant success!
Publius IV
|