Perri Nelson's Website 

Pork should come from pigs, not Senators

As I was driving in to work this morning, I heard on the radio that one of the unfortunate side effects of the "cloture stunt" that took place last week was that an amendment to strip another chunk of pork from the bill being considered was made irrelevant. After all, if the bill is "dead" then the pork attached to it is dead too. That's not a bad thing.

What IS a bad thing is that the pork in question will probably be back, attached to another bill. After all, it's a large subsidy to a company that just happens to have the sponsor's son as one of it's principal officers. Our Congress, elected on a campaign to purge the "culture of corruption", is doing everything it can to keep pork "under the radar." Why expose this sort of thing to public debate after all?

This morning the Patriot Post's Founders Quote Daily seems even more appropriate after hearing about this.

"Another not unimportant consideration is, that the powers of the general government will be, and indeed must be, principally employed upon external objects, such as war, peace, negotiations with foreign powers, and foreign commerce. In its internal operations it can touch but few objects, except to introduce regulations beneficial to the commerce, intercourse, and other relations, between the states, and to lay taxes for the common good. The powers of the states, on the other hand, extend to all objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, and liberties, and property of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state."

-- Joseph Story (Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833)

Isn't it a real shame when our Senators ignore the Constitution and tack on earmarks for their pet projects? Projects that rightly should be dealt with by the states and not the federal government? Projects paid for with moneys extorted from the citizens of other states? Especially when those projects involve the appearance of corruption like this one?

The federal government was never intended to meddle in the internal affairs of the states. The federal government was intended to unify the states, to deal with foreign powers and to protect the states. The states were intended to govern the people.

Since the middle of the 19th century we've seen a continual erosion of the rights of the states and the people in favor of ever larger, ever more reaching federal government. Once the states were sovereign nations, and they gave up a bit of that sovereignty to form a "more perfect union". The sad thing is, many of the states abdicated their responsibilities or even openly rebelled.

The fourteenth amendment marked the beginning of a serious erosion of states rights. There is much to be praised in the fourteenth amendment, including the equal protection clause in section one, but section two effectively overrides the founders intent that electors for the President and Vice president be chosen "in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct".

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

This flies in the face of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution. While it doesn't actually amend this part of the Constitution it introduces a strong disincentive for the Legislature to direct anything else but a popular election.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:

This phrase in the fourteenth amendment essentially turned the election of the President of the federal government into a popularity contest. By tying the representation of the states to the proportion of male citizens allowed to vote for Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors, state legislatures are strongly discouraged from directing any other means of appointing electors than a popular election. The President now rather than being answerable to the states is effectively answerable to the people themselves. As a consequence, rather than defending states rights, the President is naturally more inclined to pander to the wishes of the people, effectively taking power from the states and transferring it to the federal government.

We see a continued erosion of the founders' intent in movements by various states to attempt an end-run around the electoral college altogether. Some states, particularly larger "blue" states are seriously considering appointing their electors based upon the national popular vote. I am left wondering whether the one part of the fourteenth amendment that I find most harmful to states rights may actually be invoked to put an end to this folly. After all, if the state ignores it's own electorate to choose and appoint electors based upon the national popular vote isn't it in some way diluting the votes of its own people, and thereby running the risk of reducing its legitimate representation in Congress?

So what does this have to do with Pork and Senators? Quite a lot actually. The fourteenth amendment was just the beginning of the erosion of states' rights. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries there was a continued abdication of responsibility by the state legislatures. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution called on the state Legislatures to choose the Senators.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

The problem with this was that many legislatures didn't bother or were unable to choose Senators, so some states went without representation in the Senate. That coupled with the so-called progressive movement led several states to allow the people to vote for the state's Senators, abdicating their responsibility. Isn't it a real shame that the legislatures of a few states ignored their constitutional duties for so long, that it became necessary to enact the 17th amendment to the constitution?

The house of Congress intended by the founders to represent the states in the federal government wasn't doing so because the state legislatures were ignoring their responsibility. When the 17th amendment was ratified it forever changed the character of the Senate.

Now, instead of being answerable to the state governments, Senators are answerable to the will of the people. Is it any wonder then that they pander to the special interests? Is it any wonder that "bringing home the bacon" is often the measure of a Senator's success and the basis for continued re-election?

The states no longer have any real representation in the federal government. The constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of government found in Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution has been quietly amended away. Our nation has moved much closer to a direct democracy and mob rule. Worse yet, states' rights are no longer defended and the federal government knows no real boundaries to its growth.

As a result of these erosions of the founders' intent we see an ever increasingly large federal government. Our federal government has unconstitutionally assumed the governance of the people. In so doing it has stolen our liberties and our freedoms and replaced them with the "nanny state".

Citizens are no longer responsible for themselves. The federal government has taken it upon itself to decide how our children are educated, what foods we may eat and drink, how we manage our health, how fast we can drive upon the roadways, what kind of cars we can drive, what we can say about our politicians just before an election, and how much of the money that we earn we can keep. In return the government rewards sloth, greed, and immoral behavior, going so far as to encourage our children to engage in sexual behaviors as early as possible, funds the murder of the unborn, gives our hard-won treasure to foreign nations that despise us and opens our borders to people who care nothing for our way of life, or even wish to destroy it.

Every socialist cause is promoted at the federal level. Social policies and decisions that ought to be made by the states are made by the federal government. Our politicians ignore their constitutional roles, with members of Congress taking upon themselves the mantle of the executive to establish foreign policy and to negotiate with foreign governments. Our courts take upon themselves the mantle of the legislature to enact new laws by judicial fiat.

All the while the federal government does all that it can to undermine its true role - to protect and defend the states. Our congress works hard to tear down our military preparedness voting against needed funding while blaming the President for not providing the armor and equipment they need in combat zones. Our borders go undefended and unsecured with only a "token" fence for security. To do or ask for more is met with charges of racism.

Our congress enacts laws that make defense of our nation difficult at best. They hamper the executive with investigations of perfectly legal activities seeking any political motivation they can find to demonize and criminalize if at all possible. The executive prosecutes those charged with carrying out the laws if they should do so, encouraging further lawlessness.

All of this is a result of apathy, and the naked ambition of politicians. Apathy on the part of the state legislatures for failing to follow through on their constitutionally mandated duties. Apathy on the part of the people for failing to hold their state governments responsible for their acts. Apathy on the part of the people for failing to choose personal responsibility over a security blanket provided by the "nanny state".

Naked ambition on the part of politicians, seeking power in office. Seeking to remain in office by pandering to the people rather than performing the duties they are sworn to. Seeking ever greater power by increasing the size and importance of the federal government far beyond what the founders intended. Naked ambition in the form of greed, leading to corruption and bribery.

The persistent lust for power that drives our politicians is self evident. It's not just about money either, it's about power. You can see it in freezer's full of money. You can see it in pork-barrel spending that benefits the families of our legislators. You can see it in the drive for ever larger government. You can see it in the claims of "oversight" where the Constitution doesn't grant it. You can see it in the "politics of personal destruction".

And you can see it in the ever increasing trend toward socialist government bureaucracies designed to redistribute wealth, to ensure equal outcomes instead of equal opportunities.

The Democratic party isn't responsible for this bastardization of our founders' intent. Neither is the Republican party. The responsibility for it belongs to you and to me, and to all of those apathetic citizens that chose comfort and ease over responsibility and duty for the past hundred and fifty years.

Every time we choose "the lesser of two evils" at the polls we help our government to further erode our liberties. Every time we vote for a Senator because he "brings home the bacon" we help the federal government to grow in power and steal a bit more of our hard-earned money and liberty.

Whether you are a conservative or a liberal isn't the issue. What matters is that you speak your mind and vote your conscience. Don't just accept the easy way out. Don't say "my vote doesn't matter" and therefore decide not to vote.

And for God's sake, don't vote just to be voting. Learn about and think about the issues. Think about the possible unintended consequences of what you are voting for.

By choosing to ignore their duties past state legislatures have effectively given over powers that were constitutionally reserved for the states and the people to the federal government. By choosing to continue to re-elect the same lazy irresponsible politicians the people have gotten the incredibly large, socialistic government that we are enslaved to today.

It doesn't have to be that way. We CAN make a difference.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Committees of Correspondence, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog's Weblog, DragonLady's World, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Nuke's news and views, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Republican National Convention Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=886
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2007/7/23/886.aspx

David responded with:

"Since the middle of the 19th century we've seen a continual erosion of the rights of the states and the people in favor of ever larger, ever more reaching federal government."

Given Mr. Lincoln's oft-stated intent, is it any surprise that Mr. Lincoln's War resulted in exactly this turn of events? The so-called "Civil War" was intended from its outset specifically to expand the powers of the "feddle gummint" and strip the Constitutionally-recognized powers of the States from them. It was bare-knuckled Hamiltonian Imperialism, which is why the comment, "The Constitution died at Appomattox" has such a compelling ring to it. It's not an accurate statement (the Constitution didn't so much die as begin its long, slow descent into the grave), but it was dealt a mortal blow by Mr. Lincoln's determination to convert the federal republic of States the Founders established into something whose power overrode all others.

Until Americans learn the lessons of history...

Perri Nelson responded with:

David, I think you've got it exactly right, at least as to the motives of President Lincoln and many in the North. Too many people think that the "civil war" was about slavery, and yet slavery was only a side issue that rose to prominence as the North realized its economic importance to the South.

People give President Lincoln credit for freeing the slaves, yet the emancipation proclamation didn't quite do that. It only freed the slaves residing in the states that were rebelling against the Union. That was a pretty safe proclamation to make considering that the Union held no authority in the South at the time.

The actual abolition of slavery didn't happen until after the civil war, and it was probably the only good thing to come out of the war. The other results of the war, including and especially the steady decline of the Constitution were not good things.

As far as I recall though, the first shots in the war between the states were fired by the South. Open, armed rebellion was a challenge that could not be ignored by any President or Congress.