as intended and as it is now.
MR. (OR MRS.) HYDE OR US SENATOR
The greatest lesson of the last few weeks may well have been the candid look we got at what the US Senate has become.
Originally conceived as a filter for legislation and Presidential actions that would account for the interests of EACH State; it has become little more than a collection of Lords and Ladies that rule by some mysterious right or by birth. The Constitutional intent for a body that would account for (i.e. "balance") the interest of each State on an equal basis disappeared with Cavalry charges and trench warfare in the First World War.
The Constitution stated in 1787, the year of ratification, that "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof.". This was how poor little Rhode Island was to have its interests respected every bit as much as big old New York or populous Massachusetts regarding Federal laws and actions. It was simple; it is nowhere else in the world practiced; and most of all IT WORKED.
The period of the First World War was one of turmoil both internationally and nationally. There was a positive outbreak of Amendments to the Constitution unlike any other period in our history (4 Amendments in 7 years). The second of these 4 Amendments to the Constitution read, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof.".
This switch from election by your State legislature to election by voters made a subtle but very powerful change that has become more apparent over time, especially over the past 40 years. The last few weeks have highlighted just how fast this change is affecting everything from States rights to the Federal Judiciary and the attitude of US Senators.
When US Senators were elected by the State Legislature they represented the interests of the State. Today they represent whatever national or international special interest gives them the money and support they need to maintain their office. Would a Senator (like one of mine) support growing National Park Service arrogance to close roads through Parks and beaches along the ocean if the State Legislature were the ones that would reelect him? Of course not, but he gets reelected anyway. Why? Because national environmental groups from all over the country and Federal bureaucrats that benefit will not just vote for him: they will give him donations, write articles and news releases about him, volunteer for him, leak things to his staff, and campaign for him. State interests are where in this equation?
Similarly, when the US Senate ratifies an environmental Treaty or Convention that is used in US Courts to justify taking without compensation, or giving broad new Federal powers at the expense of State authority (Endangered Species, Invasive Species, Wildlands, Wilderness, Animal Welfare, Marine Mammals, etc.) would any State legislature send them back to do more of the same? Of course not, but the Sierra Club and The Nature Conservancy and PETA and The Humane Society of the United States et al will get him or her reelected. State interests are where in this equation?
Likewise when nominees for the Supreme Court are pummeled on behalf of national interest groups advocating issues like abortion and gay rights, one is forced to ask how is this the business or concern of someone supposedly representing the interests of a particular State?
In the aftermath of Katrina a US Senator was observed to be considering punching the President of the United States. Of course I would be locked up for saying that but like some ancient Lady, she flits away and is not even banished.
The point to consider is that US Senators have Devolved (not Evolved) since 1913, when the XVII Amendment was ratified, into preening peacocks. They are merely lucky US Representatives or lucky lawyers that were in the right place at the right time. Do you think either of us would stand a chance to beat one? Yeah right! They get not only the privileges of incumbency; each has a coterie of supporters from Boston to Los Angeles. The "interest of the State" is a quaint concept left in Civics Books in the Old Book Store. Senators maintain their power by playing ball with and representing national and international forces as representative of us and "our State" as the UN or the European Union.
They still have a lock on approving Treaties and Supreme Court nominees though. Plus ALL legislation must pass their arcane little scenarios of secret minuets and antiquarian rules' rulers. Why? If they are merely a House of Lords (as they were originally and specifically conceived NOT to be) we ought to do like the Canadians and British and Germans and Russians did and make them merely ceremonial costumes. Then the President and the House of Representatives could function like a Parliament and Prime Minister and get on with:
1.. Eliminating all State authorities.
2.. Declaring central authority over everything.
3.. Eliminating guns and hunting and private property and (fill-in-the-blank).
4.. Declare the US a Socialist Republic and just run the place through a "Committee".
I have grown to be convinced that of all the forces we face in putting the US back on a sound footing regarding the management of our environment and the plants and animals therein and so many other tasks before us, one of the greatest impediments is the present Lordly nature of the US Senate and it's inhabitants. The first "Native Ecosystem", as in Constitutional environment, that we should all push to restore is the US Senate. US Senators should be elected by State Legislatures and represent THEIR STATE otherwise they are worse than useless, they are dangerous. If the 17th Amendment cannot be repealed (shhh, the us senate would have to "pass" it first) I opt for just making them wear fancy capes and wigs on holidays in parades. Letting them think and act like they are doing something worthwhile other than working as long as they want and retiring millionaires is far worse for all of us than just paying them the money and telling them to go sit in some bar until the next holiday.
Jim Beers
18 Sep 2005
If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.
