0 Items  Total: $0.00

Fixing Congress

A Broken System

123 houseA recent article in Esquire magazine outlined how badly Congress is broken (November 2014 issue). It quoted current Congressmen from both parties who went to Washington to make a difference and find themselves deeply frustrated with what they can only describe as a broken system.

Anyone who watches or reads the news on a regular basis is aware just how dysfunctional Congress has become.

The very next article in the same magazine is dedicated to fixing Congress. It reports on a bipartisan meeting of Congressional icons who met and hammered out just what it would take to end the dysfunction.

The group sat around a long conference table, brainstormed, discussed, analyzed, and came up with twenty-two changes that might get Congress back on track.

With this kind of build up, I read their conclusions closely. Frankly, I was excited to see a group genuinely trying to come up with solutions.

It sounded like the group Orrin Woodward and I outlined in our book LeaderShiftwith almost the same purpose. Of course, our group met to fix America, not just Congress, but I was still very intrigued.

The more I read, however, the more disappointment I felt.

To Laugh or To Cry

The panel’s recommended changes included things like limiting members of Congress to two committees, not allowing floor votes in the mornings so that committees can meet uninterrupted, and encouraging more joint-house meetings and discussions.

By the time I finished the article, I wasn’t sure whether to cry or laugh. I found myself shaking my head slowly, wondering why we’re so far from our founding.

I got out my pen and a blank piece of paper and decided to see if I could up with something better than three pages of mostly cosmetic proposals. Here’s what I wrote first:

“Repeal the 17th Amendment”

Then I sat and tried to come up with something else. I pondered. I wracked my brain. “There’s got to be more,” I told myself. I thought of the great resolutions we outlined in LeaderShift, but in this case I was focused only on Congress. After a while I looked again at what I just had written.

“Repeal the 17th Amendment”

Finally I wrote:

“Or make the same change in some other way.”

I sat back and smiled. Every time I try to find ways to improve the Constitutional structure, or read about someone else who tries the same thing, I am amazed at how wise the American framers were. With the exception of slavery, they wrote an amazingly effective document. Of course, slavery was a huge evil, enough that the Civil War and over a hundred years of Civil Rights conflicts were necessary.

A Great Document

Take slavery out, and the framers wrote a truly excellent document. So much so that if we repealed the 17th Amendment right now, it would accomplish everything the Congressional experts try to do with their 22 changes and pages of explanations. This is a big deal. The Constitutional system wasn’t perfect, but it was amazingly good.

If we would apply it today, we’d be shocked as a nation at how many problems it would solve. Before the 17th Amendment, Congress was designed in a specific, very wise way.

The House was elected by the popular vote in each state, and thus naturally represented the people in that state. The Senate was appointed by the state legislature of each state, and as a result represented the state itself.

With the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, nobody any longer represented the states—at least not in the federal government. This unbalanced the system of checks and balances that had been carefully framed by the founding fathers.

Specifically, the founders knew that any branch of government naturally seeks to increase its power, so it set up the top power centers to face off against and check each other.

Federal and National

The framers structured our system so that the Executive would represent the nation in dealings with foreign powers, the Court would represent the Constitution and work to keep it from being ignored or improperly altered, the House would represent the people of the nation, and the Senate would represent the States in the union.

This is basic, but it gets deeper: The framers also designed the system so that when the president wanted to appoint ambassadors, secretaries of departments like State or Defense, and Supreme Court and other federal judges, he would need the approval of the Senate to do so.

The reason for this is that the Senate represented the States, and the framers knew that if the judges were chosen by the president and the House (who represent the people), the consequence would be a Court that consistently gave more and more power to the federal government—by taking less and less from the States and Locales.

When the 17th Amendment changed the Senate from a representative of the States to just another representative of the people, the natural result was the end of federal government and the beginning of national government. The difference is significant.

In a federal system, the federal government oversees national security and diplomacy and leaves the rest to the States and the People. In a national model, the national government rules the states as inferior subunits.

Which brings us up to today.

An Actual Solution

Everything dysfunctional about Congress (and a large portion of the problems in the Executive and Judicial branches) would be quickly resolved if we repealed the 17th Amendment and brought back the balance in our government.

We don’t need 22 shallow new proposals for how to make Congress less dysfunctional. We just need to actually understand and follow the Constitutional principles of freedom.

Congress—and Washington—will remain dysfunctional and broken until the balance is restored. As long as the States are frequently treated as mere extensions of the national government, the problems will continue to grow.

The Court will continue to represent popular trends rather than the Constitution, and it will keep funneling more power to Washington and away from the people.

At the same time, national spending, taxes, debt, deficits, economy-hurting regulations, and bad policies will multiply. We have an unbalanced system, but it is easily changed with four words:

“Repeal the 17th Amendment”

Congress and Washington won’t be fixed until this—or something that accomplishes the same return to balance—happens. Period.

(For more suggestions on specific changes that would bring real solutions to Congress and America in these times of political dysfunction, see the 9 Resolutions in the book LeaderShift by Orrin Woodward and Oliver DeMille.)

*******************

odemille What is Government? Part II: The Visa/Mastercard Solution Oliver DeMille is the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestselling co-author of LeaderShift: A Call for Americans to Finally Stand Up and Lead, the co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.

Among many other works, he is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, The Coming Aristocracy, and FreedomShift: 3 Choices to Reclaim America’s Destiny.

Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.

Enjoy These Related Articles:

Comments

  1. I love this article and 100% agree that repealing the 17th amendment is a necessary solution. I did have one other thought on another potential solution that I have spent a fair amount of time considering.

    Campaign Financing reform

    Those who are against limiting campaign financing claim that if you limit campaign financing you limit free speech. I argue that you are still free to speak as much as you want for your candidate, you just can’t buy your candidate. Many of today’s congressmen and women are virtually slaves to those that “purchased” them through campaign financing. This is a problem as rather than our representatives sticking to principle and to the needs of their constituency, they instead serve as puppets to those who fund their campaigns, often foreign interests.

    The solution? I have heard a few different ones, and I’m not sure at this point which is best. My favorite is limiting financing to individuals (this excludes corporations) that primarily reside in the the geographical area that they represent. Another that my more liberal brother likes is simply having campaigns publicly financed so that each candidate has equal funds to work with. I think there are obvious problems with this second option, but I know my brother would have ways to defend it so I thought I would list it anyway.

    What are your thoughts?

  2. David,
    With the fix of the 17th Amendment, campaign finance becomes less of an issue. It will still impact the House, but the House will be checked by a Senate whose members are appointed by the State legislatures. No campaigns to the public, so no campaign finance. This allows people to vote with their pocketbook, but in a way that’s checked. Best of both worlds.
    Oliver
    Oliver DeMille recently posted..Education Exposed

  3. I have read Bastiat, The Law, and pondered his principles often. He speaks of the proper role of law, but you seem to equate this law with political government. I am wondering how you make this leap.
    Also, Bastiat writes of legal plunder. “…there are only three ways to settle it: 1.The few plunder the many. 2. Everybody plunders everybody. 3. Nobody plunders anybody.” How is it that you can justify legal plunder?
    Majority rule (the democratic process in this country) always forces a minority.
    Bastiat speaks of a collective right to defense, he does not advocate majority rule. This collective right is based on the individual right to self defense. He says, “since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual…” If majority rule is force, Bastiat is saying this is not lawful.
    Who is the collective of which he writes? If it is a political government that plunders legally, I think Bastiat would be opposed. If the collective is voluntary, it fits his philosophy. What am I missing here?
    Kris B recently posted..Two basic types of Government

Speak Your Mind

*

CommentLuv badge

Share
be a pal and share this would ya?
Fixing Congress