Over two hundred years ago, some of the best and the brightest minds in the newly independent United States of America were grappling with the complicated process of writing a national constitution. One of major tasks was to ensure each individual citizen was given equal representation, and that the majority would rule. The House of Representatives would be comprised of duly elected officials, all of which represented the interests of an equal number of people. At that time, many of the residents of the thirteen states were not only concerned with individual rights, but also with “states rights”. In effect, the fear among the Southern states was that a distant, and possibly oppressive, federal government could enact laws that were not in the best interests of their particular region of the country. In order to appease the (primarily) slave-holding states, the framers of the constitution agreed to form a second body within the Legislative Branch that would give equal representation to each state, regardless of the population. The formation of the Senate, as it was called, would ensure that the new Constitution would be ratified by the southern states. Both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were opposed to creating the Senate, stating that it contradicted the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the majority will rule. As it turned out, they were right.
On many occasions during the brief history of the United States, the Senate has stood in the way of progressive legislation, supported by the majority of Americans. In two particular cases, the abolishment of slavery and the right of women to vote, Senate filibusters delayed the will of the majority from happening for decades. Once again, the will of the majority is being denied by a minority of senators. In this case, the will of the majority is to have health care reform in America.
If, in fact, health care reform is denied the American people by a group of forty, white, rich males in the U.S. Senate, it may be time to think about the legitimacy of the Senate itself, and the function it plays in twenty-first century America. It may be time to re-think the relevancy of the concept of “states rights” in the modern American age. At the local level, the governor and state assemblies are granted powers under the federal constitution to manage their own affairs, so long as they don’t interfere with rights granted under that constitution. When, however, a minority of senators from various states are granted the power to thwart the will of the majority of American people, a line has been crossed that forms a border between good, representative government and gridlock. We must not continue to let that line be crossed.
—Rich
Tags: abolishment of slavery, alexander hamilton, brief history, equal representation, framers of the constitution, fundamental maxim, health care reform, history of the united states, house of representatives, hundred years, individual rights, james madison, legislative branch, national constitution, progressive legislation, republican government, senate, senate filibusters, senators, southern states, states rights, thirteen states
very well said rich! i personally don’t care whether you are republican or democrat or independent or whatever if you are not for the “people” but instead for your own pocketbook, you should not be in office. that’s all i got. have a great day!
[Translate]
Interesting post. I look at ALL politicians through the prism of “Public Choice Theory.” I don’t trust any of them and I would rather that they had less power and less of our money—and that goes for both houses of Congress and the Executive branch too.
As I remember it, in his Virginia plan, Madison supported a bicameral congress with upper and lower houses. The upper house being elected by the lower house. And the Executive branch (the President) would be elected by Congress—not the people. Would you prefer this type of Republican government? The compromise we ended with was a perfect balance between states (Like Rhode Island which was not a slave holding state) that didn’t want to give up all of their rights to a powerful national government led by the most populous states and a national government that had some power. Madison understood that popular majority rule could be just as tyrannical as a monarchy and he was not against “states rights.” But he was against slavery.
As far as States Rights are concerned. Some of the principles that this country was founded on was the concept of the rights, freedoms and democratic governance of sovereign states. Much is written about “states rights” and its tie to southern slave states–and this is supposed to tarnish the idea of “states rights” as backward, cruel or a support of slavery. But its conveniently forgotten that New England states regularly claimed “states rights” and threatened succession during the early 19th century. Many surrounding state courts agreed with New England’s claims against the Federal government. When states like Wisconsin claimed “states rights” and refused to abide by a federal law to send back escaped slaves back to their masters, it was the federal courts and the powers of the Federal government that forced the state of Wisconsin to comply. Strange that those episodes of American history are never mentioned when “states rights” are brought up.
[Translate]
So what do we do about it? We have the power to elect, but do we have any power beyond that? Maybe if we’re all willing to make it our cause as some of the great people in history have done, we could enact change. But most people don’t want to do that, they just want health care!
Well said Rich!
[Translate]
PJ,
Unfortunately, the political process in America has been corrupted by the special interests, who attempt to influence legislation by the power of money, and not by what’s in the best interests of the people.
[Translate]
VH,
Thanks for your interesting and well-informed comment. The political structure suggested by Madison, that you referred to, was fashioned after the English Parliamentary system. Actually, this is not such a bad form of republican governance. The Parliamentary system ensures that the “chief executive” of the country will always represent the majority. This eliminates some of the political “gridlock” that we see here in America.
Perhaps one way to prevent the U.S. Senate from over-riding the will of the people would be to give the House of Representatives the power to end Senate filibusters?
[Translate]
One of the Guys,
In our political system it is very, very difficult to change the constitution, but not impossible. We must start by enacting reforms that severely limit the power of lobbyists to influence politicians. Once our politicians truly represent the will of the people anything is possible.
[Translate]
I absolutely agree than when it came to things like upholding Jim Crow laws that the state’s rights should not be a barrier to progress within the federal government, but the difference there was that what was being done was in violation of our constitution. The federal government should not override the wishes of the states in many circumstances, yet it often does.
I don’t see that the majority of Americans want national health care at all, and I believe that forcing Americans to buy health insurance is a violation of the constitution. Despite the idea that we are a majority rules kind of society we also need to remember that need to protect our constitutional rights. Many people argued that prayer in school should continue because it served the majority, yet the supreme court ruled that it was unconstitutional because it violated the rights of individuals. It’s a tricky line between what best serves the majority versus protecting the rights of minorities whether we share their views or not.
We’re a diverse nation, which I have seen first hand having lived coast to coast, North to South and smack in the middle. States both large and small have values that they hold dearly that need to be protected too.
[Translate]
There is a fine balance between the “Will of the Majority” and Tyranny of the Majority. Without delicate checks and balances, the former quickly becomes the latter and chaos ensues. Guarding the rights of minorities and indeed protecting them from the “will of the majority”, is a sacred responsibility of government.
[Translate]
Tina T.,
According to the latest polls, the majority of Americans do, in fact, want health care reform. Is it a violation of the constitution when the government requires you to buy car insurance in order to drive?
At any rate, I am not suggesting that individual rights under the constitution should be in any way abridged; only that the will of the majority should not be over-ridden by a minority group of senators who represent small states.
[Translate]
Paul,
I totally agree that the rights of the minorities should be protected from the “tyranny of the Majority”. These rights are protected by the constitution. However, I don’t recall where the constitution states that a minority group of senators can thwart the will of the majority by being allowed to prevent legislation being voted on through filibuster.
[Translate]
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of voters nationwide favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Fifty-three percent (53%) are opposed to it. Those figures include 22% who Strongly Favor the plan and 40% who are Strongly Opposed.
Support for the legislation is up three percentage points from a week ago. However, last week’s results were the lowest level of support ever recorded for the plan. With the exception of a few days following nationally televised presidential appeals for the legislation, the number of voters opposed to the plan has always exceeded the number who favor it.
[Translate]
Harrison,
The peoples’ representatives (i.e. The House of Representatives) show a solid majority in favor of health care reform. The same thing is true in the Senate. Only a Republican filibuster can kill a health care bill, and the hopes of the majority along with it. All other polls are slanted one way or another, and therefore are meaningless. The reality is that a minority of right-wingers in the Senate have the ability to override the will of the majority, and that is anti-democratic.
[Translate]
I will spare you the trouble of searching the Constitution for a filibuster clause. It does not exist.
It is a proceedural matter and the Senate could easily change the rules if it wanted to do so. It does not do so because both parties are minorities at times and want to prevent “Tyranny of the Majority.” It is a wise to preserve it. If a bill cannot muster 60% of the votes, it is probably a weak Bill.
I do not understand why you so object to this minority right protection and yet you say you support the concept.
[Translate]
Those of you that favor the continued expansion of the power of the Federal Government scare me more than anything.
When the Constitution was written, specific Amendments were added to protect the people from this very thing by allowing that all laws not given to the federal government in the Constitution nor prohibited to the states automatically belong to the states and therefore the people. The Founders saw the states as the havens that would protect the people from the development of any growth of dictatorship, should all power be centralized.
Of course none of this matters now anyway since our government has become so corrupted at all levels that the protections of the Founders have been neutralized. In PA ,our state government is more corrupt than Washington. Indictments are coming down continually against our Legislators and our Governor in a dolt. I don’t have much faith that the state would protect its citizens if it came to that. They are all corrupted by greed, power and money. All are for sale like in Louisiana.
It’s a Fools Lot that supports any of these politicians. America is in its twilight, face it.
As an aside Rich, I agree with you the will of the people is for Health Care REFORM not government run and controlled Health Care. Which will we get??
[Translate]