The Senate Stranglehold, A Solution?

Can the only guarantee in the Constitution save us from the Faction that has taken over the Senate? Can the States sue the feds?

After the Democratic Party has seized the power of the Senate and its acts of obstructing nominations and legislation have become evident, our nation finally has proof that the Senate no longer represents the States, as originally designed in our Constitution, but a political faction. The result is that just 10 persons, who are controlled by the faction, can thwart the power of the 50 States, the President, the House of Representatives, and the entire Senate! This was not the intent of the founders, who knew that factions could destroy governments. This is a sign of a nation in danger.

James Madison addressed factions in Federalist #10: “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Such a group controls the Senate.

The possible solution to this problem is found within Article IV, Section 4 of our Constitution, which states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” This emphatic guarantee is made to the States for good reason. The Founding Fathers recognized the likelihood of a faction coming into power and believed a tool was necessary to return government to its intended form should it succumb to the powers of a faction. Madison believed that the union of the States, not a political party, contained the needed cure for the defeat of the powers of a faction. Because of the power-grab in the Senate by the faction and the total loss of States’ power in the legislative processes of our government, it is time for the States to challenge the federal government for breach of this guarantee, possibly by filing a suit on the matter. However they address the issue, the States should act soon.

Strangely, the cause of this faction’s power is a constitutional amendment, for our nation would not be in this position if the 17th Amendment had not been ratified. But, around 1913 the popular sentiment was that the Railroads had corrupted the State governments and their appointments to the Senate. So, to stop the perceived corruption, the people of the nation decided to have Senators elected by the people instead of appointed by the States, which is what the 17th Amendment did. This amendment laid the foundation for the eventual death of our republican form of government.

Before the 17th Amendment, the Senators had to act to represent the States in order to hold their office. After the 17th Amendment, they had to satisfy whoever comprised the majority to keep their jobs. This shift in influence mechanisms, combined with the politician’s desire to be re-elected, has resulted in an opening for incredible government growth at the expense of States’ influence. It also resulted in the politicians using government services and handouts to buy votes from those who would benefit by these perks.

The 17th Amendment’s effects were slow to develop, but impressive nonetheless. It even affected the 10th Amendment, which was designed to limit federal growth and preserve the influence of the States. The 10th Amendment meant little to nothing without the State-appointed Senators. The fact is that the state-appointed Senators were the guardians of the 10th Amendment. The 17th Amendment removed these guardians and the growth of our federal government followed.

The irony of this issue is that the States created the federal government and placed mechanisms to limit its growth in our Constitution. The federal government has now become a monster, since it has devoured almost all the power of the States. This federal monster is still hungry. At present there are calls from some citizens to abolish the Electoral College. The politicians have answered by introducing several pieces of legislation designed to do exactly that (H.J.Res 3, H.J.Res 5, H.J.Res. 25). The Electoral College is the last remaining vestige of our being the United States of America. We are gradually becoming the Federalized States of America. The path of the faction that controls our Democratic party is clear: they want our republic to die, but in favor of what? They are headed toward socialism, is that their goal?

The faction’s control of the Senate brings about greater problems. The ratification of treaties no longer carries the voice of the States, but the faction. The future of the Judicial Branch’s new membership rests on the political views of the faction; the States are secondary. The faction’s control of the Senate has placed a chokehold on the influences of all their political competition, including the States.

Our nation must return the Senate to its original purpose: representation of the States. At present, the guarantee of Article IV, Section 4 and the results of the 17th Amendment oppose each other. If the Senators were to be elected by popular vote, yet adhered to the directions of their States, we may have a solution. But the best solution is for the United States is to remove the 17th Amendment and restore the guardians of limited government. Those who have a financial stake in big government will oppose this move. The Constitutional issue is interesting: how can you have two sections of our Constitution contradicting each other?

If the States do not act soon, the deterioration will continue. Already the emotional followers of the faction believe they were cheated in an election because they do not believe in Statehood, they believe in nationhood. They say they believe in the voter’s voice, but ignore the fact that more Republicans were elected to the Senate than Democrats. The faction believes in increasing government handouts while questioning not only the defense, but also the defense forces of our nation. Their last President signed treaties without the ratification of the Senate and pardoned persons whose numbers and crimes were amazing. He also issued an executive order (13083) that sought to increase federal powers over the States (It was eventually cancelled after Congress and many knowing citizens demanded it and legislation was introduced for that purpose). This is a faction that does not believe in our Constitution, they only believe in parts of it. They don’t believe in a United States, they believe in federalized States. They believe in their power, and may lead us into revolution or destruction to obtain it. It is up to the States to stop them.

The trouble you refered to is that the senators represent the people of the States and not the states (governments) themselves.

I think that theoretically the states could simply refuse to hold elections for Senate, and simply designate someone a Senator and send them to D.C.

And that on the basis that no state shall be deprived of its equal representation in the senate without its consent. That presupposes facts not in evidence: a state government somewhere which would have the fortitude to stand by the Constitution.

I think it'd be wonderful if anything of the sort could be pulled off. But it might almost be better if we could just get the Governors to be electronicly present senators. That would require an Amendment, of course, and won't happen without a lot more support than just you and me.

The advantages of having Governors operate the Senate would include the end of anything resembling an unfunded mandate, but even better would be the effect on the Presidency. In the event of an impeachment, Governors would be the president's nearest peers, and best suited to try him. I wonder if Democratic governors would have been as cavalier about accepting misbehavior that might be imputed to themselves in their state capitols!

In addition, senate experience is foreign policy experience--meaning that the governorship of a state would automatically be a school for presidential timber even more than at present. FDR provoked the 22nd Amendment, and the lesson of the acquital of x42 should be reflected in our law somehow.

The original meaning of the term "republic" is unknown to most Americans. A "republic" deals with the rei publicae, the public matters, which implies a complementary set of private matters with which government is not to be involved at all. What the Founders meant by a "republican form of government" is less clear.

A friend who's spent a lot of time studying the Constitutional period tells me that the Founders only meant to proscribe hereditary monarchy and similar mechanisms that could indefinitely defy popular disapproval. I think he's part right, but I intuit that more is involved. I think the real explanation is that the Founders simply miswrote, that they ought to have said that each state was required to be a republic, with a written constitution to define the rei publicae on which its government was permitted (by express delegation of power as in the federal Constitution, Article I, Section 8) to act.

If I'm correct, it was a tragic mistake -- and its results have been compounded by the veil of obscurantism power-mongering "thinkers" have pulled across the ideas and debates of the Founding Era.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

We each have studies that disagree.

There have been many intrepretations of the intent of the founding fathers, many attempt to portray the founding fathers as a bunch a slave-owning racist capitalists who wished to protect their finances.

But the Constitution is written well. They studied philosophy before writing that document, dissecting the problems that led to the eventual fall of governments, and, as a group, did all they could do to make a government that lasted longer than all the others.

They settled on a form of govenment the could not be legally changed by "light and transient causes" and did everything they could do to prevent a Democracy. They referred to such popular governenments as subject to the tyranny of the majority.

THE GUARANTEE is made to the States from the Federal Government for good reason. they wanted principles running our nation rather than factions and popularity.
That's why we're called the United States.

the Founders simply miswrote, that they ought to have said that each state was required to be a republic, with a written constitution to define the rei publicae on which its government was permitted (by express delegation of power as in the federal Constitution, Article I, Section 8) to act.

The Constitution isn't written to constrain the states; some states had established churches long after the ratification of the First Amendment. States had slavery when the Federal Government perhaps couldn't(?)
The Constitution was written to constrain the States only insofar as that was implied by the purposes enumerated in the preamble.

I'm aware of that, Lynn. The 1787 Constitutional Convention was the creation of state delegates, after all. I still think it was a mistake not to require of each state a constitution similar in structure to that of the federal one. One look at New York's constitution is enough to drive a man to Bedlam -- and it's not the worst of the fifty.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

I would prefer that we deal with the problem on a bigger scale.

Before worrying about universal application, is it ok if I look for a way to reestablish the principle? Right now Democrats control the Senate, and so they love the place. But in principle the Senate is anathema; it isn't democratic. All those tiny-population states having 2 senators just like CA and NY . . .
The trouble is there are two kinds of States:
Original 13
Creatures of the Federal Government.
. . . and most of the original 13 are governed by Democrats or RINOs. So the states that are candidates to assert states' rights are thin on the ground.
I just think the MO precedent is amusing, at a minimum. And of course it would be a Democratic governor instigating it, and then-Senator Ashcroft (R) rolling over for it. Fearless prediction: after the by-election in MO to replace Carnahan (or not), the Dems will suddenly realize that the '00 election of Carnahan wasn't legit. Sorry 'bout that!

if ONE State were to file suit, let's say Nebraska, for the Fed's violating the guarantee?

They'd have to address it, wouldn't they?

IMHO no. The courts would simply say that it's not their job to adjudicate that.
What you actually need for a test case is for someone to break the law and attempt to legally face down any attempts to enforce the law. My point about the Carnahan precedent is that it points the way for that test case.
1. rig the election so it can't produce a senator--in the Carnahan case that accidentally partway happened, in the sense at least that there was no legitimate choice other than the sole remaining live candidate (who happened to be the incumbent).
2. the governor of the state then names the senator. In the MO case, even tho there was a living candidate who had lots of votes (indeed nearly a majority), the governor declared the seat vacant and named Carnahan to the post. So the precedent is that there can be a situation where the governor names someone other than the living eligible candidate with the most votes.
3. ultimately a state simply does not let anyone on the ballot for senate except the governor himself, and then when he wins he names the actual senator. That could indeed get to court, but only on the suit by someone who wants to be on the ballot but is kept off by the state legislation. Best case would be to do that by surprise the first time, and prevent the courts from having a way to remedy the 'tort'.
Again, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a state to do that. It smacks too much of actually taking responsibility for your actions.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.