Changing Course for Liberty's Sake

Last Thursday, Sen. John “Maverick” McCain took pandering to a new level. “I will never ever, while I’m alive and breathing as U.S. Senator, stop working to pass immigration reform,” he told the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. That would be the same Sen. John McCain who ran this ad in 2010, when he faced a tough primary campaign against J.D. Hayworth. In it he blamed illegal aliens for “home invasions, murders” and advocated for completing the “danged fence” along the U.S.-Mexico border. That would also be the same Senator John McCain who had previously co-sponsored the DREAM Act on three separate occasions, but who once again opposed it in 2007 because he “got the message” that Americans wanted the border secured before we “go on to the rest." In short, John McCain is a poster boy for an idea whose time has come: much like America rectifying the enormous blunder of Prohibition, it is time to repeal the equally pernicious 17th Amendment that enabled the direct election of Senators.

Unfortunately, a semi-educated society makes the prospect more difficult to achieve. The same electorate in which six-in-ten Americans polled by Gallup expressed the idea that the federal government has too much power, is largely unable to make the connection between that reality and the 17th Amendment. All most of them see is a usurpation of their ability to choose the Senate candidate who represents them in Washington, D.C.

Except that they don’t. Take spending for example. A Reason-Rupe poll reveals that 76 recent of Americans believe the federal government spends too much money, with 63 percent of them expressing the belief that members of Congress are out of touch with their constituents when it comes to such spending. Another 72 percent of Americans believe the budget should be balanced either immediately (40 percent) or over five years (32 percent).

Those are substantial majorities expressing a clear-cut opposition to fiscal profligacy. Yet the wishes of that substantial majority are not only ignored, but routinely defied by members of both parties who have ratcheted up gargantuan levels of debt that threaten the solvency of the nation. When a Republican majority did so during the Bush years, it was theoretically in violation of their core beliefs. Democrats are doing the very same thing now in accordance with their core beliefs – even as the Democratically-controlled Senate had consistently violated their obligation to pass a budget for more than three years.

This year, nothing has changed. Late in February, Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-WA) announced that the Senate would once again forego their obligation, contending a December deal has already set spending levels for the 2015 fiscal year. Murray contended that "relitigating” it would create economic uncertainty. She then offered Americans the kind of meanness pablum that infuriates the public. "We must continue finding ways to bring down our long-term debt and deficits, but at the same time, work together to create jobs and expand opportunity and prosperity for all Americans,“ she said.

In other words, they’re ignoring you.

And why shouldn’t they? Despite expressing their disapproval, Americans have become quite used to the idea that government operates from Washington downward, rather than at the local level upward. That the latter concept would produce far more effective representation has gotten lost in the shuffle, and nothing expresses that reality better than the Obama administration’s never-ending effort to squash like a bug anything resembling states’ rights. The most egregious example of that effort is the Justice Department’s determination to litigate against voter ID laws in Texas and North Carolina, despite a 2008 Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana’s right to require a photo ID for voting by a 6-3 margin – and despite the reality that 78 percent of Likely U.S. Voters polled by Rasmussen believe everyone should be required to prove one’s citizenship before being allowed to register to vote.

Such defiance is only possible when states’ rights have been rendered virtually irrelevant. And despite what many Americans believe, those rights are diluted by the popular election of Senators, not enhanced. "You’d have to educate people about what the 17th Amendment is all about and what the repercussions are," contends Republican Jim McKelvey, who pushed the idea last year in an unsuccessful campaign for the Virginia House of Delegates. "State sovereignty has been trounced on. It’s one of the big problems.”

Unsurprisingly the 17th Amendment, finally adopted on May 31, 1913 was pushed by the progressives of that era, led in large part by President Woodrow Wilson’s Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryant. All during the campaign for its approval, opponents warned that its passage would undermine the ability of states to hold sway in Washington, even as their pleas were ignored. In his book The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic, radio talk show host Mark Levin explained that giving state governments “direct input in the national government was not only an essential check on the federal government’s power, but also a means by which the states could influence congressional lawmaking.” Levin further explained that passing the 17th Amendment was "an object lesson in the malignancy of the Progressive mindset and its destructive impact.“

It is impossible to argue with that contention, and perhaps nothing demonstrates it better than ObamaCare. Despite passage of the bill by a Democratically-controlled Congress, 27 states eventually filed lawsuits challenging its constitutionality. After its approval by an ideologically divided Supreme Court, thirty-six states rejected establishing state exchanges to administer the law. From its passage until today, the law has never had the support of a majority of Americans, reaching an all-time low last week.

Prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment, a Senator voting against the best interests of his or her state could be immediately recalled. In other words, the likelihood of ObamaCare passing would have been substantially reduced, if not outright eliminated, by such a reality.

What do we have instead? From 1964 through 2012, there hasn’t been a single election cycle where less than 80 percent of incumbents weren’t reelected, with some years reaching as high as 98 percent. Thus, even as a majority of Americans remain enraged by the higher costs, the narrowing of provider networks and the overt lies promoted to get this gigantic turkey through Congress, the chances that most, or even a handful of Senators will be held responsible for the debacle are slim to none. And if even the most vulnerable Senators get past the one hurdle they face next November, they will have 6 more years to defy the public, absent any consequences whatsoever.

Regardless, Americans remain more enamored with democracy as opposed to the genuine democratic republic envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Democracy best described as either the mob rule it inevitably becomes – or two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for lunch.

Americans are getting their collective lunches eaten by an out-of-control federal government under the best of circumstances. Under what are becoming the worst of circumstances, they are standing by helpless while an Obama administration literally makes law up as it goes along, and a Senate controlled by the execrable Harry Reid (D-NV) abides our descent into banana republic status, because it accrues to their progressive ideology. The very same ideology that eviscerated states’ rights and paved the way for the federal government to become the liberty-crushing monster it is today.

Americans have tolerated such nonsense long enough. There is no downside to re-establishing the balance of power between the states and the federal government. The bet here is unrepentant phonies like John McCain, along with several other equally duplicitous members of the so-called "august body” would have been put out to pasture a long time ago. Other than the emergence of a truly viable third party, there is probably no better way to give the ruling class the collective kick in the shins it so richly deserves. The nation wasn’t named the United States of America for no reason. Let’s restore that reason to its rightful place in history.

The Patriot Post® · Changing Course for Liberty's Sake