The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism

Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | May 13, 2006 | Murray N. Rothbard

[Lucky Dog]

I apologize for being cranky this morning.

Apololgy accepted.

To respond to your continuing socialist sloganeering...

Your withdrawal from the discussion, if that is what you are attempting to do, noted.

[Lucky Dog]

That's absurd. The functions are clearly spelled out...so clearly in fact that a grade school student could read the constitution and derive it's meaning. The reason so many supreme court decisions exist isn't to clarify the powers of government but usurp powers that clearly were not included.

How interesting that you conclude that every Supreme Court Justice from John Jay, who was a delegate and elected President of Continental Congress before being the first Supreme Court Chief Justice to Clarence Thomas and Anthony Scalia either haven’t the intellect of a grade school student or are attempting usurp power.

Such a broad generalization certainly causes one to wonder about the source of that generalization.

The questions arising typically aren't actual questions but attempts to twist the meaning of plain text as an excuse for some power grab.

Again, do you not find it amazing that all of those learned men, some of whom were contributors to the Constitution, could be involved in twisting the meaning of plain text as an excuse for some power grab.

The preamble does not carry the weight of law.

So you maintain that part of the document is not law, but part is? Some one might term such a pick-and-choose interpretation as twisting the meaning of plain text. Are not the words “ordain and establish” legal terms? Are these words not in the Preamble? It would seem to me that if any of the Constitution is law, it, all, is law unless specifically so specified within the document, itself. I found nothing in the Constitution that specifies that the Preamble is excepted from the status of the rest of the document.

The "general welfare clause" doesn't exist as such, and that fact is quite clear in both a textual analysis and reviewing any historical documents concerning that very question.

It is a minor point, but there is no "general welfare clause", merely, a phrase in the Preamble. You will note that I did not refer to any such thing as a “clause.” Additionally, you may have also noted that I referred to specifically enumerated powers elsewhere in the Constitution in addition to the “general welfare phrase” from the Preamble.

The only powers the government has are those which are specifically enumerated. Having a "carte Blanche" clause makes no sense in context of limiting the powers of government. The commerce clause is also quite specific in it's powers. It was not intended as a "Carte Blanche" clause either.

It would seem that there is a difference of interpretation of the “specifically enumerated powers” listed in the Constitution. Whether you agree, or not, there are numerous court cases over disputes about, exactly, what is the “clear meaning,” and, exactly, what are the “specifically enumerated powers.” My point is not that I necessarily agree with the outcomes of some of those cases, but that there are apparently, well founded, and sincere disagreements. You and I may not agree with the resolutions of some of these cases, but it one of those “coercive powers” of government that settles disagreements.

If we remove the limits on government power then that will be our suicide.

Believe it, or not, I actually agree with your point. Where I disagree is where those limits actually are.

The founding Fathers never intended the Constitution to be changed by "interpretation" or why would they have included a mechanism within the constitution to change it.

On the contrary, they did. It is called the judicial branch. History records some rather famous disagreements over this topic, notably among Washington, Jay, Jefferson, Jackson and others. However, the issue is now a “settled” one as the lawyers are fond of saying. Again, while you and I may disagree with those interpretations, it still boils down to individual citizens ceding that “coercive power” to government to settle disputes.

If the government requires a power then the amendment process exists to give them that power without destroying, twisting and perverting the very foundation of our society ie: the constitution.

I could not agree more. However, once again, as noted above, it still boils down to individual citizens ceding that “coercive power” to government to settle disputes. The courts of the land have the authority to interpret the law of the land inclusive of the US Constitution. If you do not agree with their interpretations, it is specifically your right to petition your representatives to exercise their authority under Article I, section 7 and Article III, section 2 to change the situation. Alternately, as you have already noted, the amendment process is also available to specifically change what is currently the situation to something more to your liking.

Your demonstrably wrong "theory" of the constitution, while popular, is the basis of the problems we face, and no matter how much we continue to pervert the constitution, it will never be enough to correct the problem.

First, let us be clear, it is not my theory of the Constitution. I had no part in inventing or developing it, only studying it.

Actually, I agree with you that some of the “interpretations,” especially in the last century, have been a “stretch” and rather far from the founders’ intent. Nonetheless, the situation is as we find it. As I have noted, there are mechanisms within the Constitution short of the amendment process to change the situation, if those who disagree can muster the requisite political will and power to make it so. Beyond that, you have also noted the amendment process… There are, now, 27 such amendments on record, so it safe to conclude that the process works.

[Durus]

How interesting that you conclude that every Supreme Court Justice from John Jay, who was a delegate and elected President of Continental Congress before being the first Supreme Court Chief Justice to Clarence Thomas and Anthony Scalia either haven’t the intellect of a grade school student or are attempting usurp power. Such a broad generalization certainly causes one to wonder about the source of that generalization.
That wasn't my conclusion at all. I certainly don't think that the usurpations of powers was the result of a lack of intellect but a desire for power. I also never concluded that every Supreme Court case is by default a usurpation of power. Only where the Supreme Court decision conflict with the text of the constitution. There are, unfortunately, enough of those without going to the extreme of "all". The broad generalization is yours sir, but I will not subtle gibes about the source.

Again, do you not find it amazing that all of those learned men, some of whom were contributors to the Constitution, could be involved in twisting the meaning of plain text as an excuse for some power grab.
Again the broad generalization is yours. Of course I should find it amazing that some learned people lust for power but I realized that it is unfortunately the nature of some people despite their education or knowledge. These people tend to be attracted to government.

So you maintain that part of the document is not law, but part is? Some one might term such a pick-and-choose interpretation as twisting the meaning of plain text. Are not the words “ordain and establish” legal terms? Are these words not in the Preamble? It would seem to me that if any of the Constitution is law, it, all, is law unless specifically so specified within the document, itself. I found nothing in the Constitution that specifies that the Preamble is excepted from the status of the rest of the document.

The preamble gives a basic out line of the intentions of the constitution but doesn't confer powers. If it did confer power from inference there wouldn't be a need for the rest of the document actually enumerating powers. Further if one were to actually believe that the preamble inferred powers then one would also have to believe that our government power is unlimited. It's a truly sophomoric argument.

It would seem that there is a difference of interpretation of the “specifically enumerated powers” listed in the Constitution. Whether you agree, or not, there are numerous court cases over disputes about, exactly, what is the “clear meaning,” and, exactly, what are the “specifically enumerated powers.” My point is not that I necessarily agree with the outcomes of some of those cases, but that there are apparently, well founded, and sincere disagreements. You and I may not agree with the resolutions of some of these cases, but it one of those “coercive powers” of government that settles disagreements.

As I stated earlier, the cases where the outcome is expanded power beyond the specifically enumerated powers is the result of ambition for more power not "sincere disagreements". Is does not fall within the authority of the Judicial branch to change the constitution or to make law.

First, let us be clear, it is not my theory of the Constitution. I had no part in inventing or developing it, only studying it. Actually, I agree with you that some of the “interpretations,” especially in the last century, have been a “stretch” and rather far from the founders’ intent. Nonetheless, the situation is as we find it. As I have noted, there are mechanisms within the Constitution short of the amendment process to change the situation, if those who disagree can muster the requisite political will and power to make it so. Beyond that, you have also noted the amendment process… There are, now, 27 such amendments on record, so it safe to conclude that the process works.
You have adopted this theory and you advocate it thus it is now "yours" for the benefit of discussion.
Other then the amendment process there is no constitutional way to change the Constitution. Just because the government has made a business of usurping powers through unconstitutional means doesn't make those means constitutional.

[Lucky Dog]

How interesting that you conclude that every Supreme Court Justice from John Jay, who was a delegate and elected President of Continental Congress before being the first Supreme Court Chief Justice to Clarence Thomas and Anthony Scalia either haven’t the intellect of a grade school student or are attempting usurp power. Such a broad generalization certainly causes one to wonder about the source of that generalization.

That wasn't my conclusion at all. I certainly don't think that the usurpations of powers was the result of a lack of intellect but a desire for power.

From your post 100: The functions are clearly spelled out...so clearly in fact that a grade school student could read the constitution and derive it's meaning.

I also never concluded that every Supreme Court case is by default a usurpation of power.

I don’t recall that anyone posited that you had so concluded.

Only where the Supreme Court decision conflict with the text of the constitution. There are, unfortunately, enough of those without going to the extreme of "all". The broad generalization is yours sir, but I will not subtle gibes about the source.

“All” of those justices (from John Jay’s time to this) have been involved in decisions that have “interpreted” the Constitution involving situations where the “text” of the document or its meaning was in dispute. By definition, if there was a dispute there was a conflict involving the “text of the Constitution.” So, are we to conclude that “all” of those justices (not “all” of the cases) have such a desire for power that they resort to intellectual dishonesty?

Again, do you not find it amazing that all of those learned men, some of whom were contributors to the Constitution, could be involved in twisting the meaning of plain text as an excuse for some power grab.

Again the broad generalization is yours.

The generalization is based as follows: The Supreme Court has been deciding interpretations of the Constitution since John Jay’s first court. Both the executive and legislative branches have questioned the Constitutional validity of many of these interpretations from the very first one to now. Every Supreme Court justice has been involved in deciding some Constitutional issue during his or her tenure. Every decision has involved an interpretation. Consequently, the generalization is accurate, based upon your postulates.

Of course I should find it amazing that some learned people lust for power but I realized that it is unfortunately the nature of some people despite their education or knowledge. These people tend to be attracted to government.

Because you used the qualifier, some, I cannot quarrel with your statement directly. However, for your statement to carry weight, the term, some, would actually have to be changed to a majority since that is what it takes to have a binding court decision. Now, it would seem that you are alleging that the majority of these learned individuals so lust for power that they are willing to be intellectually dishonest. Is this what you intended?

…It would seem to me that if any of the Constitution is law, it, all, is law unless specifically so specified within the document, itself. I found nothing in the Constitution that specifies that the Preamble is excepted from the status of the rest of the document.

The preamble gives a basic out line of the intentions of the constitution but doesn't confer powers. If it did confer power from inference there wouldn't be a need for the rest of the document actually enumerating powers. Further if one were to actually believe that the preamble inferred powers then one would also have to believe that our government power is unlimited. It's a truly sophomoric argument.

We the people of the United States, … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You don’t find that these words confer power? Without them the rest of the document would be philosophically meaningless.

Contrary to your assertion it is not the government’s power that the Preample implies is unlimited, it is We the people of the United States. Far from “sophomoric,” as you assert, the Preamble is what gives the remainder of the document its authority (ordains and establishes). It not only has the “force of law,” it is the law.

It would seem that there is a difference of interpretation of the “specifically enumerated powers” listed in the Constitution. Whether you agree, or not, there are numerous court cases over disputes about, exactly, what is the “clear meaning,” and, exactly, what are the “specifically enumerated powers.” …

As I stated earlier, the cases where the outcome is expanded power beyond the specifically enumerated powers is the result of ambition for more power not "sincere disagreements". Is does not fall within the authority of the Judicial branch to change the constitution or to make law.

Absent an issue of original jurisdiction, modern cases do not make it to the Supreme Court unless lower courts have first ruled on the dispute and usually there have been disagreements among the various appellate courts or different circuits. No appellate judge specifically decides cases so that he or she may be overturned on appeal (with the possible exception of the Ninth Circuit). Consequently, it can safely be stated that the differences are, in deed, “sincere disagreements.”

While you make think that the justices are changing the Constitution, for them to intentionally do so, would be a violation of their oath. If such were true, it is, not only, intellectual dishonesty, but perjury and false swearing. If such were the case, Congress has the power under the Constitution to impeach and remove the offending judges. As a matter of fact there are federal judges (usually lower court judges) that are so removed on a routine basis. Consequently, it must be concluded that the elected members of Congress do not disagree enough with the decision to see the issue as a violation of the justice’s oath.

First, let us be clear, it is not my theory of the Constitution. I had no part in inventing or developing it, only studying it. …

You have adopted this theory and you advocate it thus it is now "yours" for the benefit of discussion.

Very well, if you insist, I accept your terminology for the duration of the discussion.

Nonetheless, the situation is as we find it. As I have noted, there are mechanisms within the Constitution short of the amendment process to change the situation, if those who disagree can muster the requisite political will and power to make it so. Beyond that, you have also noted the amendment process… There are, now, 27 such amendments on record, so it safe to conclude that the process works.

Other then the amendment process there is no constitutional way to change the Constitution. Just because the government has made a business of usurping powers through unconstitutional means doesn't make those means constitutional.

If you had read the Constitutional references I cited (Article I, section 7 and Article III, section 2), you would have seen that I was not referring to changing the Constitution. Rather, those references were how Congress can change the courts so as to prevent what you think is the usurpation of power. If you and others are so ardently convinced that the courts are usurping Constitutional power, then all that is necessary is for you, and they, to muster the requisite political will and power to make it so.

[Durus]

Let's not start playing words games that detract from the discussion. My point, which I though was quite clear, is that any decisions which expanded government's power, from the first supreme court (although I doubt you can find a decision from the first supreme court which expanded the power of government) until the current court, beyond those powers specifically enumerated, is blatantly unconstitutional. I wasn't calling any specific supreme court justices stupid and/or power mad nor was I calling all supreme court justices stupid and/or power mad. For that matter I wasn't calling the individuals who brought any cases to the supreme court stupid or power mad. After all justices don't make up cases to decide. That isn't to say that the general majority of "disputes" over the "meaning" of the constitution are intellectually dishonest conflicts with a very different motive then seeking clarity. Further, such decisions do not usually lead to a broad grant of power that doesn't exist in the text of the constitution.

However, for your statement to carry weight, the term, some, would actually have to be changed to a majority since that is what it takes to have a binding court decision. Now, it would seem that you are alleging that the majority of these learned individuals so lust for power that they are willing to be intellectually dishonest. Is this what you intended?
The term "some" doesn't logically lead to a majority of justices in total but a majority of justices that are sitting on the bench at the time they formulated an unconstitutional decision.

We the people of the United States, … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
You don’t find that these words confer power? Without them the rest of the document would be philosophically meaningless.
What power does it confer to government? I never stated the the preamble didn't have meaning just that it didn't confer any powers to government.

No appellate judge specifically decides cases so that he or she may be overturned on appeal (with the possible exception of the Ninth Circuit).
Quoted for humor

I would continue but it appears to me that you are shifting the discussion once again.
Your arguments are not so strong nor is your intellect so obviously superior that it justifies the consistent patronizing tone of your posts.

[Publius Valerius]

If you're a citizen, sure, I've got no problem with that.

I don't know that I would even feel comfortable calling voting a right, but even if it is, it's certainly not the type of natural right that all people are entitled to have--indeed, the constitution even states that voting rights can be taken away. It's just not a natural right.

For instance, I have no problem with a form of government that involves peerage--like the old House of Lords--or a type of government that is not "one man, one vote" like was the case in many states until the 1960s.

Once society makes a commitment to protect natural rights, things like voting become a lot less important.

[Publius Valerius]

D. [T]he pure libertarian… can only support a constitutionally limited, democratically-elected, republican form of government with certain individual rights immutably and irrevocably enshrined in that constitution…

I can't speak for everyone else, but I would have to say that I take some issue with this. I don't see a democratically-elected republican form of government as a requirement. In fact, I think you can make a strong case for peerage as necessary (or, at least, certainly not antithetical to libertarianism) to protect certain--especially property--rights.

As I noted in my post above, it is at least my opinion that the form of government itself is really not relevant, so long as society (and the government) maintain a commitment to protecting natural and property rights.

[Publius Valerius]

It is called “to promote the general welfare.” It is further delineated in the “Commerce Clause.”

But this just can't be.

If this really meant what you take it to mean--that the "general welfare" clause of Art. I, Sec. 8 gives the federal government power to regulate anything it deems to be contrary to the general welfare, then it has unlimited power--and that clearly defeats the purpose of the entire document. If Art. I, Sec. 8 gives the government that broad of powers, why bother enumerating Congressional powers in the same section, even! Isn't that redundant at best, and contradictory at worst?

In sum, I really don't think you can honestly read the general welfare clause that broadly; it creates a de facto national government. That seems to defeat the purpose of the rest of the document: creating a federal government of limited, enumerated powers.

[Lucky Dog]

Sorry you find my tone patronizing.

No insult was intended. However, I think if you will check the posts, the vast majority of the insults on this thread have been directed at me, up to, and including, one poster referring to me as you socialist b*stards. Even you and I have previously had a little exchange over “juvenile” usages. Nonetheless, I bear no ill will toward any.

If you choose to terminate the discussion, that is certainly your option.

However, if you wish to continue, I will also, provided we can agree on the terms and methods of future debate.

I would continue but it appears to me that you are shifting the discussion once again

Please note that I have made every effort at clarity, In post #70, I completely reposted my original comments from post #14. In post #90. I attempted to summarize areas of agreement and disagreement.. In post # 95 I invited you to create your own summary if you disagreed with mine. I noted no such summary was forthcoming. I repeat and color code post excerpts to avoid confusion. Yet, you accuse me of trying to shift the discussion. Your charge seems a bit incongruous, to say the least.

Having said the preliminaries, I will respond to the major portion of your post as you have defined it.

(although I doubt you can find a decision from the first supreme court which expanded the power of government)

If you check your history, you will note that John Jay created the very first Supreme Court controversy by insisting that the court had the right of review of the legislative branch’s and executive branch’s actions for Constitutional compliance. The exchange was quite contentious.

My point, which I though was quite clear, is that any decisions which expanded government's power, from the first supreme court… until the current court, beyond those powers specifically enumerated, is blatantly unconstitutional.

The problem with your concern is four-fold.

First, some of the “powers” to which you refer not that distinctly defined to begin with and were made worse by some amendments, e.g., the 14th. For example, what exactly does it mean that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Is enforcing segregation denying such? In other considerations, executive privilege is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but has been claimed as an inherent power ever since Washington. There are, obviously, other possibilities which is why cases continue to come up.

Secondly, the world has changed a great deal. For example, when the Constitution was signed, there were no telephones or computers. Consequently, can you be content to give the government the authority to wiretap your conversations or search your hard drive at will because telephones or computers are not specifically mentioned as one of those things in which the citizen can be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures? In the 1790’s there was no way that toxic pollution from a plant in one state could possibly affect citizens in another state. There are probably hundreds of examples of things that could be brought up in this category, but I think you get the point.

Thirdly, there are dozens federal agencies to regulate and manage problems that could not have existed or, even, been envisioned in 1789. For example, the FAA provides for safe aviation transportation services and the FCC keeps interference from ruining everyone’s radio and TV signals.

Fourthly, the international situation is vastly different. How does Congress declare war on Al Queda, a non-state entity that has carried out the only successful, foreign power, mass casualty attack on the US mainland since the early 1800’s. What is the Federal government’s responsibility in controlling the commercial transfer of technology from private companies to potential enemies? During the 1790’s the international agreement on how far national boundaries extended into the sea was 3 miles (the range of a cannon shot). Today it is 200 miles, but the range of a missile or fighter is much further. What are the limits of sovereignty? International cartels exist (oil for example) that can cripple the US economy as well as our ability to defend our selves militarily.

[mrsmith]

That isn't "history", it's pure orwellian bull.

"The State, in short, was to be kept extremely small, with a very low, nearly negligible budget."
The "State" was to have ALL the power it had before, even more. The state governments still had all powers they did not give to the new federal government, the new federal government had all the ones they did- plus some new ones.

Idiot libertarians- which let me make clear is not all libertarians- constantly throw this lie at ignorant people.
Sure, the federal government was very cconstrained domestically until the Civil war- but the states were not. The "State" consisted mostly of the states.

[DugwayDuke]

"Once society makes a commitment to protect natural rights, ..."

And, just how long do you think this commitment would last if unrestricted immigration were allowed?

[Publius Valerius]

And what reason do you think it would have to change? Just your xenophobia?

[Lucky Dog]

I think you can make a strong case for peerage as necessary (or, at least, certainly not antithetical to libertarianism) to protect certain--especially property--rights.

Peerage is a system of titles of aristocracy, historically used in many monarchical systems of government. The term "peerage" technically refers to a subset of the complete system of titles of nobility, with the precise meaning varying from country to country. -- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A true libertarian does not recognize any non-merit based distinctions among citizens as all citizens have the same natural rights. Therefore, any distinctions accorded a noble or sovereign would be unacceptable.

[DugwayDuke]

So, you're only going to allow those who share your libertarian philosophy to immigrate?

Remember your natural rights? How long do you think they'd last if a few hundred million new immigrants decided they prefer socialism?

[Publius Valerius]

As I said, I have no problem with peerage, especially as exists in the old House of Lords. They are bound by law (as opposed to a morarch, who is bound only by natural law) and have no special rights other than to sit in the House of Lords. I think such a system could very well be important to the protection of rights.

Even if you take issue with peerage, you can do like our founders did and tweak the concept and just call it something different. We have the Senate instead of the House of Lords, but the Senate was all but peerage. The principle, though--a branch of government made up of those who are wealthy and powerful--is important.

I don't think it's any coincidence that the federal government began to tremendously expand its powers (and consequently, lessening individual rights) around the time we amended the Constitution to allow for direct election of Senators.

[Publius Valerius]

That's why you have a system of peerage within government--again, you seem to labor under the impression that I'm concerned with what the majority thinks. As I noted earlier, I don't even think that voting should necessarily be considered a right.

Immigrants can come here all they want. They can want socialism all they want--it's the government's job to say "too bad."

[Lucky Dog]

It is called “to promote the general welfare.” It is further delineated in the “Commerce Clause.”

But this just can't be.

If this really meant what you take it to mean--that the "general welfare" clause of Art. I, Sec. 8 gives the federal government power to regulate anything it deems to be contrary to the general welfare, then it has unlimited power--and that clearly defeats the purpose of the entire document. If Art. I, Sec. 8 gives the government that broad of powers, why bother enumerating Congressional powers in the same section, even! Isn't that redundant at best, and contradictory at worst?

In sum, I really don't think you can honestly read the general welfare clause that broadly; it creates a de facto national government. That seems to defeat the purpose of the rest of the document: creating a federal government of limited, enumerated powers.

You are correct in that the “general welfare phrase” was originally intended to be limited. I suggest you read Federalist Paper 41 by Madison. He lays out the limitations that the founders envisioned as appropriate for this phrase. It was intended to dovetail with a federal system of limited powers. Unfortunately, the “water has been considerably muddied” by the 14th amendment which, to a great extent, turned the federal system into a national one and abrogated a number of the limitations on the formerly, limited powers.

However, the reason I mentioned it was to emphasize that even the limited powers do not preclude the government from taking those steps essential to prevent national collapse. Such a situation would, not only, come under the general welfare phrase, but the defense phrase as well. Additionally, the “commerce clause” of the Constitution covers all interstate commerce. Therefore, if any drugs (the original topic under which this area was mentioned) cross a state line or money from the sale of such or information about acquiring such, Congress is entitled to intervene without stretching the original “commerce clause” even a little bit.

[Publius Valerius]

I don't know if I would say that it wouldn't stretch the commerce clause "even a little bit."

If you read the language of the commerce clause, it reads "to regulate commerce . . . among the several states...." This could easily be read to mean only transactions between states could be regulated. This interpretation would mesh with some of the problems that the states had under the Articles of Confederation.

But, even leaving that aside, your interpretation gets us where we are now--a system in which, as you admit, is a National Government that has de facto unlimited powers to regulate as it so chooses. There is no question that was not the intent of the Founders, and it strikes this writer as strange that we would interpret a clause of the constitution to reach a result that we KNOW is directly contrary to that envisioned by the Founders, especially when a perfectly legitimate reading of the document is available and comes much, much closer to meshing with the intention of the Founders and the document.

Unlike others on this thread, I don't feel that the meaning of every clause in the constitution is plainly obvious, but to read a clause to mean something so directly contrary to what it was intended to mean just is unfathomable to me.

[Lucky Dog]

As I said, I have no problem with peerage, especially as exists in the old House of Lords.

Can anyone sit in the House of Lords or only those to whom titles have been arbitrarily given? If the answer is that the entry is restricted on anything other than merit, then a true libertarian could not support it.

They are bound by law … and have no special rights other than to sit in the House of Lords.

As I recall from my stay in Great Britain, the House of Lords retains some governmental privileges (admittedly small and relatively inconsequential). However, even the smallest of not-merit based privilege or authority is a violation of the principle of equality before the law.

I think such a system could very well be important to the protection of rights.

I must disagree.

Even if you take issue with peerage, you can do like our founders did and tweak the concept and just call it something different. We have the Senate instead of the House of Lords, but the Senate was all but peerage. The principle, though--a branch of government made up of those who are wealthy and powerful--is important.

The original selection of senators was, in fact, by the state legislatures. Therefore, senators were still indirectly responsible to voters as they elected the state legislatures. How wealthy and powerful individuals were was not a direct qualifier.

I don't think it's any coincidence that the federal government began to tremendously expand its powers (and consequently, lessening individual rights) around the time we amended the Constitution to allow for direct election of Senators.

The coincidence may exist temporally. However, to attribute any supposed expansion of federal power to directly elected senators is more than a stretch.

[Lucky Dog]

Unlike others on this thread, I don't feel that the meaning of every clause in the constitution is plainly obvious, but to read a clause to mean something so directly contrary to what it was intended to mean just is unfathomable to me.

Philosophically, I agree with you. However, it appears you failed to note my comment about the 14th amendment.

The Constitution was significantly altered by this amendment. This amendment directly gave the federal government the power to enforce a prohibition against actions which would “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” or “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” without defining exactly what those privileges, immunities or protections were. In short, it became the “Carte Blanche” or “wedge,” if you will, to stepping from a federal government to a national one that others on this thread have been complaining about. Since this was an amendment to the founding document, its alterations were not required to be in tune with the founder’s intent.