Jefferson himself had major reservations about the constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase. And, IMO, he overlooked those reservations because the idea of doubling the land area of this country, and seeing to it that such a large contiguous land mass did not fall into the hands of another, held more appeal than did the constitutional question. But, more than a quarter of a century later the Supreme Court (strangely) affirmed the constitutionality of his decision, ruling that the government could purchase new territory under its constitutional power to make treaties. They argued that the Constitution grants the government the powers of making war and of making treaties; consequently, that government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty (and we think modern Supreme Court decisions are nebulous and often unfounded?)
Whether we agree or not (and I certainly don’t, although the Purchase was an extraordinarily good thing), the point is that both the President, and the Court, were of the opinion that the Constitution afforded the federal government this right. They didn’t affirm the constitutionality of the Purchase on the grounds that the people wanted it. They affirmed it on the grounds that it came under the powers granted the federal government.
As opposed to today’s countless unconstitutional ‘we have to do it for the good of the people’ laws. There’s a world of difference in that specious philosophy, and disrespect for the rule of law, have completely taken the place of the question of the constitutionality of anything. The government simply has to convince the people that the law will be working in their best interest, and bam! You’ve got a new (generally socialist) law on the books.
Nowadays, the question of constitutionality isn’t even brought up. Did the President or Congress have any (meaningful) discussion about the constitutionality of the recent prescription drug bill? Or did they simply sign it into law, because of some nebulous (as they always are) precedent set by the myriad of other unconstitutional federal entitlement programs?
I agree completely with your last paragraph. All three amendments (17, 19 and 26) are scourges. And, as I suggested in my original post, and you affirmed in yours, they represent the stupidity of the Founders’ descendents – and, as a consequence, the stupidity of their elected representatives. But that doesn’t mean that the constitutional process should be ignored. There are bad laws. And there are bad amendments. But I would rather see three bad amendments tacked onto the Constitution than the library full of unconstitutional federal laws that are on the books (few of which would be, if an amendment -- good or bad -- were required to place them there).
~ joanie
(Eye didunt spel too gud bak then.)
And as I recall, he had reservations about a National Bank., though some of his contemporaries felt otherwise (It’s been awhile, am I correct here?). In spite of all that, we got the Louisiana Purchase and the National Bank within a few years of the adoption of the Constitution.
It seems that we’ve had trouble with this thing from the beginning. Maybe we need to step back once in a while and reflect that the wonder is not how badly we have done but how well. It’s a shame that there is not a better system, but there is not. Not in the whole world.
The government simply has to convince the people that the law will be working in their best interest, and bam! You’ve got a new (generally socialist) law on the books.
That’s one of the reasons my thoughts on this matter distress me. Instead of the people telling the government what they want it to do, the government (or demagogues inside or outside the government) tells the people what the people want the government to do. And the checks and balances have eroded. Among other things:
- The Senate (as representatives of the States) no longer acts as a check on the House (as representatives of the people) because the Senators now are elected by and therefor also represent the people.
- The politicians take up Government as a career rather than being farmers or businessmen or professionals with a career outside Government, and their power and influence become entrenched. (One of the things that worried me about Clinton even before we knew what we know now, is that he seemed to have wanted to be the “man in power” his whole adult life. That doesn’t appear to be the case with Bush and that’s one of the things I like about him.)
- The Party system as it has become (maybe as it always was) encourages those elected at the State level to defer to those at the National level or to the Party leaders instead of doing what’s right for their State or the people of their State, because those at the State level need the others support to get elected and stay in office.
- And I’m not so sure on all this, but I think in the beginning the standard for being a voter was higher than it is now. (I am not saying anyone should be denied the vote because of race or gender.)
I think the question may come down to whether the federal government is intruding on what would normally be a state matter. If it is not, then perhaps it doesn't need specific authorization in order to do it. I know that's bordering on heretical, but I don't know any other way around the issue. I'm not quite prepared to say that the U.S. is constitutionally prohibited from peacefully enlarging its territory when the opportunity presents itself.
William Flax