Constitutional Dilution

Most Americans age 50 and above, and all immigrants who have become naturalized citizens, understand that the form of government in our Constitutional Republic, as specified in the Constitution of the United States, has three branches:  Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.  That one branch cannot wield excessive power, certain “checks and balances” are built into the system to prevent it.

Again, most Americans can tell you that the courts, through their decisions, protect the people against unconstitutional laws passed by the Legislature, that the President may veto a bill sent to his desk, and if they feel strongly enough (i.e. have enough votes), the Congress can override a presidential veto.

That is about as deep as most peoples’ knowledge of the subject goes.  Today I would like to share with you some more checks and balances in our brilliant 1791 Constitution.

Before we do that, let’s look at the main purpose of the Federal Government and that is to protect the individual rights of the people from the will of the majority.  It is not, as many seem to think nowadays, to ensure that “majority rules.”  This concept is the hallmark of “democracy” which is far from what our Founding Fathers designed.  Indeed the Founding Fathers were decidedly against forming a “democracy” for the simple reason that they don’t work.

They also knew that crowds can become mobs, and both crowds and mobs are subject to the ebb and flow of emotion and to influence by the major media (in any era).  What our Founding Fathers wanted was a Republic where the rights of the people were supreme and the government’s job was to protect them from everything that might seek to violate them, including the will of the majority.

They were universally against “democracy.”

Giving a speech in New York on June 21, 1788 to urge the passing of the U.S. Constitution, Alexander Hamilton had this to say about democracy:

“It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”

James Madison was a little more verbose in expressing his thoughts on the subject:

“Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths… A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

For these reasons, the Founding Fathers designed a Government with the duty to “support and defend” the Constitution, meaning to manage the government and its policies according to the Constitution.  They strengthened this concept when, in Article VI, they require all government officials to swear an oath to “support” the Constitution of the United States” and Federal Law has expanded to include “support and defend” or “preserve, protect, and defend.”  This was a departure from the common oaths of office at that time which were usually to a Monarchy or to the country itself.

The Founding Fathers knew that if they “took care” of the Constitution, the rest of the country would take care of itself.

Then, soon after the Constitution was ratified, quiet forces went to work to change the system and evolve toward “democracy.”

You don’t believe me?  Let’s look at a couple other provisions for “checks and balances” and insulations from the unpredictable emotions of the people and their untimely demises:

Election of President and Vice President:  Under Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution, the votes of the Electoral College are counted and (assuming one candidate has a majority of Electoral votes), the candidate with the most votes is elected President.  The candidate with the second most votes is Vice President!  As we know that the Vice President also serves as the President of the Senate, that would make for a pretty marvelous “check and balance,” wouldn’t it?  We all also know that, even when they are in the same party, the Vice President is pretty much ignored unless something happens to the President.  Under the original system, the Vice President had an actual job to do, which was to lead the opposition party!

Well, we couldn’t let that brilliant arrangement stand, and we had to fiddle with it.  Under the XII Amendment, ratified in 1804, the Electors actually vote separately for President and Vice President.  In practice, that has evolved into the recent practice of the President and Vice President running together.  This however is not required.  My read of it is that under the XXII Amendment, a candidate could, in theory, just run for the office of Vice President without a “partner” president.

Scratch one “check and balance” off the list of rules for running the United States of America.

Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 1 directs that United States Senators will be elected by their state legislature.  Another nice check and balance protecting us from the emotions of the masses.

Of course, we couldn’t let that stand and it was changed to “popular” election by the XVII Amendment.

Indeed prior to the ratification of this amendment, the only federal offices elected directly by the people were the members of the House of Representatives.

And this was a good, stable system.

Scratch another “check and balance” off the list of rules.

The XVII Amendment was ratified in 1913, about the same time (best I can tell), that we started this “propaganda” campaign about democracy.  I have a poster of my grandfather’s, from his time in the Army, which commemorates the victory in World War I and it proclaims in a big banner, “That democracy may survive, the cause is worthy of the sacrifice.”  At a time when the government curriculum for “Civics” was still teaching that our system of government was a Constitutional Republic, why would we be fighting a war to preserve “democracy” anyway?

Three months before, the XVI Amendment was ratified giving the Congress the power to collect taxes on “incomes.”  What exactly “incomes” meant in a legal sense at the time and the scam it has evolved into is a whole ‘nother story.  It is interesting to note, though, that this is the same year the “Federal Reserve Act” was enacted and our Government gave a license to a privately owned banking cartel to print U.S. money.  Again, another story for another day.

But are you seeing a trend?

Now, what’s next on the hit parade?

Every time the Electoral College works EXACTLY THE WAY IT WAS DESIGNED and prevents the election of President by popular vote, you’ll find a growing clamor to abolish the Electoral College, because “it’s not fair to (insert name of whining candidate who lost here) that he/she got more votes than the winner.”

If one looks at the map of the United States showing the result of the “popular” vote in each county, it is very, very clear that the vast “majority” of the United States of America wanted Donald Trump as President.  If we had used the popular vote, the gigantic populations of New York and California would have decided for the rest of us and we would have Hillary-Cougar-Rodham-Mellencamp-Clinton in the Whitehouse.  If we abolish the Electoral College, the rest of us in “flyover country” need not bother to show up to the next presidential election.

Through years of dilution, both of the Constitution and what we teach in schools about it, we have lost not only the knowledge, but also the commitment to “support and defend” it agains ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

In my opinion, we should abolish the XII and XVII Amendments and return to the “Civics” education we used to provide in public schools so that our children will grow understanding, appreciating, and defending the Constitution of our united States.