|
The Genius and Divine Inspiration of the United States Constitution (Part
Two): Broadening Democracy: Cracks in the Foundation
Steven Montgomery
March 26, 2003
Bad principles in a government, though slow, are sure in their operation, and
will gradually destroy it. ---Alexander Hamilton
Last week we discussed how the foundational structure of the United States
Constitution ensures that there would be competing power centers with a
brilliant system of offsetting checks and balances. Since it is the nature and
disposition of almost all men to seek power, wealth, and dominion over others
there must exist a system which will harness, restrain and temper that
disposition. Far from being obsolete, or an outdated agrarian document of the
eighteenth century, or a document prepared by the rich and wealthy elite for the
governance of others, the Constitution was instead intended to harness, brake,
and restrain human nature.
Further, precisely because of these various checks and balances the United
States Constitution has endured a remarkable 214 years since its adoption.
However, those who do not prize freedom have managed to make cracks in the
system.
With almost prophetic foresight, George Washington forecast with uncanny
accuracy a major area where the United States Constitution would be assaulted
and corrupted. In his famous farewell address he warned:
One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the
Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to
undermine what cannot be directly overthrown (George Washington, Farewell
Address)
This article will briefly summarize and introduce three areas where assaults
have been made upon the form or structure of the United States Constitution and
its resulting deleterious effects. More specifically, we will explore how an
undue emphasis upon "democracy" and the idea of "broadening democracy" has
worked to insidiously undermine foundational structures of the Constitution.
First off, it is to be noted that a republican form of State and Federal
government was intended by our founders--not a democracy. Further, as discussed
by last week article, the elements of democracy must be counterbalanced by the
elements of monarchy and aristocracy.
Where has the Constitution been damaged by an undue focus upon the elements
of democracy? There are several, here are three:
- Improper application of the Electoral College
- Direct Election of Senators through adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment
- Abandonment of property requirements for voters
Electoral College
Regarding the Electoral College, the framers rejected popular election of the
President. The Constitution is clear that presidential electors, selected in the
different states, would meet and vote by ballot for a President and
Vice-president of the United States. Their choice was to be the result of
deliberations to ensure that only those who were wise in constitutional
principles, honest in their dealings with their fellow man, and with a sense of
inherent goodness. As Alexander Hamilton put it:
. . . the immediate election should be made by men most capable of
analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under
circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of
all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A
small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general
mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment
requisite to such complicated investigations. (Alexander Hamilton,
Federalist 68)
Largely because of Party Politics, this fundamental provision of the U.S.
Constitution has for many years now been set at naught. For many decades now it
is the people themselves who have dictated their choice of President. While
theoretically electors of the Electoral college can vote whom they will, in
practice they are merely a rubber stamp.
Recent years have seen increased calls that the Constitution be amended to
eliminate the electoral college. Yet, the quality of political information
available to the public has apparently not changed much since the days of our
early republic. Read these words of Thomas Jefferson:
Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper . . The
real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are
in a situation to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the
day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow
citizens, who reading newspapers, live and die in the belief, that they have
known something of what has been passing in the world in their time . . .
General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now
at war . . . but no details can be relied on. (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to
John Norvell, June 11, 1807)
Harsh words regarding the media. One wonders what Thomas Jefferson would say
about the misinformation and disinformation bandying about in today's electronic
media world.
Today, just as in the Founders day, people can be too easily swayed by
passion, prejudice, and self interest, and too easily deceived by demagogues.
Today, largely because of the mass media, presidential elections resemble high
school popularity contests which tend to be mass emotional decisions of an
uninformed or misinformed populace.
17th Amendment
By requiring that Federal Senators be chosen by State legislatures provided
the States with an important check against out of control Federal Government. AS
stated in Federalist 62:
. . . the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a
constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the
individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary
sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large
than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by
every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States
into one simple republic. Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in
the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove
against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed
without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a
majority of the States. (Federalist 62, Alexander Hamilton or James Madison)
However the adoption of the seventeenth amendment changed all that. Because the
States now have no representation in the Federal Government they now are
virtually powerless to protect themselves against Federal encroachment.
Property Requirements
Under the original Constitution many States required that votes possess a
certain amount of property. Historically, the right to vote was tied to property
requirements. One might ask, why is this so? Among the reasons that can be given
by such a requirement are that it would automatically ensure that voters would
have a vested interest in government and its proper role. Protection of property
would surely rank high among governments proper functions. Such an idea was not
lost to our founders. As James Madison puts it:
Viewing the subject on its merits alone, the freeholders [land
owners] of the Country would be the safest depositories of Republican
liberty. In future times a great majority of the people will not only be
without landed, but any other sort of , property. These will either combine
under the influence of their common situation; in which case, the rights of
property & the public liberty, will not be secure in their hands: or which
is more probable, they will become the tools of opulence & ambition, in
which case there will be equal danger on another side." (James Madison,
Notes)
Sometimes concepts can be better understood by learning about their opposites.
Karl Marx certainly understood that liberty and property were intimately
connected. Abolition of private property was his goal as stated in the Communist
Manifesto. Also, read these words of his regarding property requirements and the
vote:
man proclaims politically that private property is abolished as soon
as he abolishes the property qualification for the vote…Is not private
property as an idea abolished when the non-owner becomes legislator for the
owner? The property qualification for the vote is the ultimate political
form of the recognition of private property." (Karl Marx, A World Without
Jews)
Largely because the States have abandoned property requirements for voters
and the passing of the 24th Amendment which abolished poll taxes there is now no
built in tie-in between voters and the preservation of private property.
In summary, the United States Constitution has been severely damaged by the
adoption of principles which foster the broadening of democracy at the expense
of three vital guard towers of liberty, the Electoral College, the indirect
election of Senators by State Legislatures and by ensuring that the voting
franchise be connected to property ownership. By abandoning these vital checks a
green light has been given for the Federal Government to increase greatly in
size and scope.
Next Issue, we examine other areas where the constitution has been weakened
at its foundational structure and affect its functioning as a system.
Constitutional Broadside Index
Home
Steven Montgomery
Last Updated on ... March 18, 2007
This page hosted by 
Get your own Free Home Page
|