When the U.S. Constitution was ratified, it was understood
that the Senate was to represent the interest of the States. This arrangement was designed as a safeguard
against rampant populism and a check upon the ambitions of the federal government.
Then the 17th Amendment was passed. Now, the States are being turned into
vassalages and the citizenry enslaved by ambitious politicians and unchecked
bureaucrats. I’m here to say that the
U.S. Senate cannot serve two masters.
Either they represent the interest of their state, or that of the
federal government. So far, it has been the
latter.
Many believe that it’s impossible to repeal the 17th
Amendment. The argument is made that the
individual voter would rather have a say as to who shall represent them in the
Senate rather than allowing their state’s legislature to make that choice. What we are seeing in many states is the interest
of urban areas dominating that of rural or less populated districts. Sometimes these senators don’t vote in the
interest of either. Before the 17th
Amendment the states had the ability to recall rogue senators. Now we have to wait 6 years for these super-legislators
to come to the polls.
Something has to be done about the U.S. Senate. If we can’t repeal the 17th
Amendment then we must find other means to make them more accountable. One way is to shorten their terms. The other is to repeal Article 1 Section 6
[1] of the U.S. Constitution:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a
compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the
Treasury of the United States.
We shall continue to pay the Representatives out of
the U.S Treasury, but Senators will have their salaries ascertained and paid by
their state’s legislature. That is how
we can ensure they vote in the interest of their state. There is a precedent. The following excerpt from The Five Royal
Governors of North Carolina 1729 – 1775 demonstrates what happens to those who
serve one master at the expense of the citizenry:
The most ever-present problem of his entire
administration – and that of the other royal governors – was the problem of his
salary. As has been noted already, the
governor was a royal agent, a servant of the King and his lieutenant in the
colony. As such he was not really
responsible to the assembly or the people.
And yet he was dependent upon the colonial assembly for his salary. It is easy to see what an effective weapon
this could be: either the governor
signed assembly’s bills into law, however much they displeased him, or they
withheld his salary.
Withhold a senator’s salary and we’ll see a change
in attitude from these super-legislators.
No comments:
Post a Comment