Does the federal government work for us?
“Politics is the art of making your selfish desires seem like the national interest.”
~ Thomas Sowell, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
More than 200 years ago, the states united and wrote a contract, the Constitution, creating an employee, the federal government; and that contract outlined specific tasks the federal government would perform for the states’ combined welfare.
However, in the early 1800s, the Supreme Court ruled that it alone presided over the Constitution and it alone would decide what the Constitution said. Is this what the Founding Fathers and the states intended? Did they mean for the Supreme Court to decide its own powers and those of the rest of the federal government?
Admittedly, over the course of our republic’s history, there have been times great leaders circumvented the Constitution and realized a wonderful outcome. However, is that an appropriate justification for continuing to do so? Does the belief in a greater good justify ignoring the Constitution? If so, who can ignore it and what can they ignore? Moreover, isn’t the logical end to this approach the loss of our Constitution and ultimately, our republic?
Either we have a Constitution or we do not; we cannot ignore the constitutional process to change its meaning. Isn’t our republic worth the effort of preserving the integrity of our Constitution by changing it through the amendment process, rather than unconstitutionally changing it with political power via the courts, especially the Supreme Court?
The following words are in the 22nd Amendment, “This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of submission to the states by the Congress.”
Compare this acknowledgement of states’ powers and properly amending the Constitution to the answer a Senator offered to the following question, “Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” The Senator condescendingly responded, “Are you serious?” The Senator’s staff later added, “That was not a serious question.”
Isn’t this consistent with the beliefs of most of our elected officials in Washington, this Senator just making the mistake of saying it aloud. The federal government no longer recognizes that it is subservient to the states and offers only a begrudging acknowledgment of the Constitution’s existence.
I have always thought one of the mistakes of the Founding Fathers was their failure to envision politics as a career choice; instead, they saw it as a service to their nation, a sacrifice, always expecting to return to life as a private citizen.
I think the only way the states and the people can reclaim their constitutional power and make the federal government accountable within its constitutional boundaries, is to limit the time a politician can spend in office. We amended the Constitution in 1951 to limit the number of terms a President can serve. Now it’s time to add Congress and, more importantly, the Supreme Court justices to similar term limits.
But why the justices? After all, the Founding Fathers wanted them appointed for life to protect their objectivity from political pressures. Well, that failed. The justices instead use their lifetime appointments as shields to protect them from responsibility and accountability.
Further, the nomination of a Supreme Court justice has become the single most important function of a President’s tenure in office. It is critical for the President to nominate a justice with the “correct” political views. In turn, the justices have cooperated with presidential and congressional agendas, reducing themselves to lifetime politically appointed bureaucrats, advancing their own beliefs at the expense of the Constitution. Several justices have even admitted that their backgrounds and personal values alter their votes.
If we limited time in office, we might find people more interested in genuine government service. Though I cannot say with certainty this will solve our problems, I can say with certainty the status quo will not.