An Argument for States' Rights
One of the greatest usurpations of power from the states by the federal government was the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment. Whether or not this was intentional is irrelevant since, in the end, this is exactly what happened.
The Seventeenth Amendment (17th) over-wrote Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution itself which stated, "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", with, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures."
To many this was a great idea as it broadened the idea of democracy by permitting even more direct election to the people of the nation, but it also had another effect: it eliminated all say that state government had in federal politics.
When the Senate was elected by the state legislatures it was the responsibility of the Senators to monitor bills as to how they'd affect the state in which they resided. This was a way of monitoring and keeping in check federal demands and spending that might affect the states.
For example if you were a state that did not have a large budget, and the state legislature - those who put you in the position of Senator - could not afford to alter the budget as might be required by a piece of US Congressional legislation, the Senator would vote it down and the state's budget would be maintained. This was a great tool when it came to being able to limit taxation and spending at the national level. This in fact happened many times, and one of the more recent examples is the Americans with Disabilities Act which requires all sidewalks to be wheelchair-friendly at all intersections. The federal government decided it knew best for all of the nation by making cities and towns pay the expense of legislation in which they had absolutely no say.
This is not to say that the ADA is a horrible idea, but the enactment certainly has much to be desired. While there was a 'grace period' in implementing the policy, the fact still remained that the states had no direct say in that matter either.
The original idea was that one branch of the Legislature would be elected by the people, and the other branch elected as a voice of the governments of the individual states. While some argued that before the Senate was elected popularly, there was much corruption, I challenge them to find out how angelic our current Senators may in fact be.
Of course, the idea that all elections should be 'one person, one vote' is no where mentioned in the Constitution or elsewhere, but the idea survived even a Supreme Court challenge in Reynolds v. Sims; a case where the State of Alabama has set up their state Legislators as the US Congress had: one house represented a district of a certain amount of people, the other house represented geographically defined districts in an effort to not shut out people who represented a minority voice (like farmers and others living in rural areas). Here the Warren Court made the useless but profound sounding declaration that, "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system." He went on to say, " We agree with the District Court, and find the federal analogy inapposite and irrelevant to state legislative districting schemes. Attempted reliance on the federal analogy appears often to be little more than an after-the-fact rationalization offered in defense of maladjusted state apportionment arrangements."
Thus, without a Senate to defend the rights of the state legislations, no bills were drafted to give the states the ability to decide how local and state elections should be arranged. It seems Chief Justice Warren decided that that federal model could not have been an inspiration to the states when deciding how to set up their legislatures. Amazing how much knowledge he must have to accurately assess that.
The amount of power taken from the states is also a direct result of another amendment that also played a role in Reynolds v Sims: the fourteenth. If the federal government is ever to be reeled in, we must reduce the authority of it, and give the authority back to the states, and the people respectively.
The Seventeenth Amendment (17th) over-wrote Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution itself which stated, "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", with, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures."
To many this was a great idea as it broadened the idea of democracy by permitting even more direct election to the people of the nation, but it also had another effect: it eliminated all say that state government had in federal politics.
When the Senate was elected by the state legislatures it was the responsibility of the Senators to monitor bills as to how they'd affect the state in which they resided. This was a way of monitoring and keeping in check federal demands and spending that might affect the states.
For example if you were a state that did not have a large budget, and the state legislature - those who put you in the position of Senator - could not afford to alter the budget as might be required by a piece of US Congressional legislation, the Senator would vote it down and the state's budget would be maintained. This was a great tool when it came to being able to limit taxation and spending at the national level. This in fact happened many times, and one of the more recent examples is the Americans with Disabilities Act which requires all sidewalks to be wheelchair-friendly at all intersections. The federal government decided it knew best for all of the nation by making cities and towns pay the expense of legislation in which they had absolutely no say.
This is not to say that the ADA is a horrible idea, but the enactment certainly has much to be desired. While there was a 'grace period' in implementing the policy, the fact still remained that the states had no direct say in that matter either.
The original idea was that one branch of the Legislature would be elected by the people, and the other branch elected as a voice of the governments of the individual states. While some argued that before the Senate was elected popularly, there was much corruption, I challenge them to find out how angelic our current Senators may in fact be.
Of course, the idea that all elections should be 'one person, one vote' is no where mentioned in the Constitution or elsewhere, but the idea survived even a Supreme Court challenge in Reynolds v. Sims; a case where the State of Alabama has set up their state Legislators as the US Congress had: one house represented a district of a certain amount of people, the other house represented geographically defined districts in an effort to not shut out people who represented a minority voice (like farmers and others living in rural areas). Here the Warren Court made the useless but profound sounding declaration that, "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system." He went on to say, " We agree with the District Court, and find the federal analogy inapposite and irrelevant to state legislative districting schemes. Attempted reliance on the federal analogy appears often to be little more than an after-the-fact rationalization offered in defense of maladjusted state apportionment arrangements."
Thus, without a Senate to defend the rights of the state legislations, no bills were drafted to give the states the ability to decide how local and state elections should be arranged. It seems Chief Justice Warren decided that that federal model could not have been an inspiration to the states when deciding how to set up their legislatures. Amazing how much knowledge he must have to accurately assess that.
The amount of power taken from the states is also a direct result of another amendment that also played a role in Reynolds v Sims: the fourteenth. If the federal government is ever to be reeled in, we must reduce the authority of it, and give the authority back to the states, and the people respectively.
posted by Edward W. Prather at 21:49
<< Home