THE DEMISE OF THE GREAT EXPERIMENT IN
SELF-GOVERNMENT BY WE THE PEOPLE
Below is an outline of
the major factors that led to the demise of the great experiment in
self-government by We the People. For unless
we understand how it was undermined/destroyed, we won’t know how to fix it.
Why www.PolicyUSA.com ? The name PolicyUSA.com is used because the United States needs a clearly defined policy at the national/federal level, if it is going to get its act together on behalf of We the People.
The following is intended to show major elements
of our national demise:
The purpose of the Constitution is to protect We the People
against arbitrary power from government:
When the nation was founded, it had
colonies/states with functional operating governments. The Constitution
was created to provide a national envelope to protect the interests of the
various states and the people. Rightfully fearing the typical tyranny
that evolves in national governments of its day (and to this day), the founders
went to extensive effort to separate responsibilities of the federal/national
government into the three branches, provide for checks and balances between the
branches, and then stipulate the responsibilities of the branches. And,
most critically, its representatives were to be selected and elected by the
people.
To further protect the nation from tyranny, many
of the ratifying states demanded a Bill of Rights, and as a consequence 12
articles were submitted to the states for ratification, 10 were ratified soon
and are referred to as our Bill of Rights. The second on the list was ratified
in 1992 as our 27th Amendment.
The first of the 12, called Article the First is crucial to
self-government by We the People to work as it was intended to limit the size
of a representative district to one reasonable in population size for the
people (in contrast to powerful special interests) to control the outcome. It
was sabotaged from the versions passed by the House and Senate, rendering its
purpose pointless, and as a result it was not ratified.
As the tendency of government power, throughout
history, is that it leads to tyranny, it is critical to understand that the
Constitution, and the necessity to uphold it, was a primary protection for We
the People against runaway government. But for that entire system to
work, the general public at large had to be able to control the process of
selecting and electing and holding accountable its representatives in order for
the integrity of the Constitution and the national government power to be
restrained to what is stipulated in the Constitution. See the enumerated powers of
Congress.
Representative government only works if We the People are in
charge of the process:
Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution
stipulates a minimum of 30,000 population for a congressional district. Of the 12 articles submitted for
ratification, the very first was to establish a maximum size for a
congressional district. Both the House
and Senate in 1789 voted on this proposed apportionment amendment called Article the First. The House version allowed for districts to
grow to 50,000 population and the Senate version provided for one
representative for every 60,000 people.
In reconciliation it was decided to use the House version. However, just before it went to the states
for ratification, the word “less” in the final clause was changed to “more”
rendering the amendment pointless in limiting the district size and this
amendment was never fully ratified.
Surprisingly, this topic of district size is not discussed as an issue
by our politicians, pundits, or educators.
There is a simple reality when it comes to representation: As district size increases there is less and less chance
the average person will have knowledge of any particular candidate, and as
district size grows, it becomes increasingly difficult for the average person
to know or have any input into the selection of a candidate, other than what
they learn via various media...all of which is subject to manipulation by good
actors, money, and corporate agendas.
Following each census, congressional districts
are reapportioned. It took more than 50
years after the ratification of the Constitution before district size exceeded
the recommendations of the 1789 Congress, and by then all the founders had
died.
Initially Domestic issues were the prerogative of the States:
At the time our Constitution was ratified,
domestic issues were handled individually by each state, local municipalities
or the people—domestic issues were NOT the prerogative of the national
government.
The start of the lobbying industry:
During and after the Civil War a lobbying
industry started to evolve in order to gain influence on national government activity
and to bypass the scrutiny of the public (We the People). Nothing wrong with lobbying per se, but when
it is done without public scrutiny and financial incentives become involved, it
is a corruption of our system.
Steady growth in size of congressional districts:
After the Civil War, Congressional districts
continued to grow in population size, such that by the time the “Progressive
Era” began, at the start of the 20th Century, House districts were in excess of
200,000 population and the
general public was effectively no longer in charge of the process of selecting
candidates. It had become an increasingly politically corrupt process, as
the general population lost control of the process.
Advent of the state primary election process:
Historically, candidates for elections had been
chosen by each political party, ostensibly through local meetings and larger
conventions of party delegates—with the people very much involved.
Due to such issues as the occasion of backroom
deals and party insiders wielding excessive control in some constituencies, the
Progressives were gradually able to sell to states on the idea that primary
elections would be more “progressive.”
While much can be said about the need for party
politics to be responsive to the will of its constituents, essentially
abandoning local and regional gatherings to select candidates in favor of
statewide primary election process is counterproductive to that end.
State primaries actually shifted control away
from the people towards the powerful special interests who are best able to
influence the population through mass advertising and other persuasive
processes, especially as when they can gain control over the mainstream
media. The argument against the state
primary process is the same as the argument against large House districts and
statewide election of Senators—it shifts the control in favor of the powerful
special interests.
The Constitution an obstacle to the “Progressive” agenda:
To the “Progressives,” the Constitution was an
obstacle to their agenda of creating an ever more powerful central government
governed through administrative agencies controlled by “experts” who knew
better than the average citizen how to manage the affairs of the nation.
While the Constitution has always been a living
document, due to the Article V amendment processes, the Progressives wanted an
easier and direct way to modify the powers of the Federal government, one which
bypassed the amendment process.
Based on the reality that the people no longer
controlled the process (since most members of Congress were more beholden to
special interests than the constituencies), the forces of politics, using the
power of government, were able to make changes that never would have been
approved or desired by We the People—if given the power to do anything about
it.
Congress freezes the size of the House of Representatives:
If you are out to get your way, and to do so
means manipulating the political process in a way that We the People would not
otherwise endorse, the less people you have to deal with the better.
Thus, in 1911, Congress passed (to the “Progressive” President’s delight) an
apportionment act that froze the size of the House of Representatives to 435 members—to which it
remains to this day.
And that is where we are at the current point in
history—super large districts, exceeding 750,000 and growing in direct
proportion to the growing population of this nation. With a small House of Representatives,
largely elected and controlled by special interests, We the People are largely
out of the loop.
Political special interests fool the public and change the way
Senators are selected:
Also, as Senators were selected by the state
legislatures, it was much harder to control Senators that were committed to the
interests of their state. For powerful special interests it is much
easier to get two favorable senators in statewide popular election, than it is
to control the multitude of members of state legislatures, so they can get
Senators to their liking. Thus, they were able to fool the public into thinking
it was much more democratic to have statewide elections to select senators than
to let the legislatures do it.
As such the “Progressives” were able to get the
17th Amendment passed and ratified changing the method selecting Senators to a
single statewide election—which is much easier to corrupt and control than
legislative bodies of many legislators. Thus our Senate is no longer
comprised or doing the function our founders planned it to be, which was to
represent the interests of the states.
Corruption of the Supreme Court and hence the entire federal
judicial system:
It took a while but eventually the
“Progressives” were able to corrupt the Supreme Court—largely through
transforming the legal system via law schools. Traditionally, the Supreme
Court rendered its decision based on the letter of the Constitution and
founding documents of the time it was written, notably the Federalist
Papers. However, especially during the
New Deal, that got thrown out the window.
Corruption of the meaning and original intent of the
Constitution:
As the “Progressive” movement proceeded, the
original interpretation became an increasing obstacle to new laws and the
growth of the administrative state. The court began to reinvent
interpretations, notably the “interstate commerce” clause that had been put in
place because under the Articles of Confederation, various states had been
imposing tariffs and other hindrances to interstate commerce. The idea
was that the federal government would be able to stop these activities and
promote interstate commerce.
Well, the new interpretation under the New Deal discarded
that interpretation into changing the definition of commerce to that of all
“industry” something not considered as commerce at the time of the
founding. This opened a world of opportunity for the federal government
to begin the process of interfering and regulating industry. So, we had
the process or “reinterpreting” the Constitution growing as a legal process.
There are many ways to pervert a law. One
way is through the process of “stare decisis” whereby
a jurist can take language from a previous court decision to become the basis
of a new decision. While this can make sense in common law, it is
perverted when a judge renders a court decision that expounds on a wide range
of considerations, none of which are germane to the actual court decision.
And then, in a future court decision, that language in that past decision is
referred to as a legal basis for the new decision. You might read Daniel
Horowitz’ book Stolen
Sovereignty, which details how this process was used by the courts
to totally corrupt and reverse standing immigration policy in this nation.
It has now become common practice for the
Supreme Court and other federal courts to exceed the Constitutional limitations
and render decisions that impact our nation—none of which would have been
tolerated prior to the “Progressive” era. This includes, such landmark
cases as Reynolds v
Sims, Roe v
Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges and many, many others.
There is no longer a limit on what the federal government can do
(or more accurately, get away with):
When Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) was being
pushed, someone challenged Pelosi, asking where in the Constitution it
permitted Congress to mandate health care. Her response, “Are you
serious.” At this point in time there is no limitation to how the
federal government can impose its will upon We the People.
America created an immense military industrial
complex as a result of World War II. The
reality that businesses seek to grow and expand their profit is a reality that
many believe was and remains an impetus for America engaging in so many wars of
questionable necessity.
Historically, the entertainment media has always
focused on the sensational and pushed the envelope of social mores—in America,
theatrical production for the general public (such as films and television) had
been held in check by a production
code, which in 1967 was discarded in favor of a loose rating system which
transformed the entertainment industry into a social engineering operation,
dedicated to decimating what had historically been the values which work for a
functional civil society. The fabric of
our society has been disintegrating since.
Over this same time period, the consolidation of
education under bureaucratic and union control has occurred. Local
newspapers, television and other media has been gobbled up to the point that 6
major corporations can (and do) control the editorial agenda.
In the 1990’s federal government efforts to
contain executive pay for corporations backfired, as executives were awarded
stock options rather than increased wages.
As a consequence, short term profit to raise the stock price became more
important to these executives in many instances, rather than long term benefits,
resulting in many negative consequences.
In many cases, a once robust manufacturing base
in the United States has diminished, as manufacturers shut down domestic plants
and shift production to other countries to increase profit margins on products
that we produced domestically, once produced, and then shipped back the foreign
produced products back to America to be sold.
Evolving tech companies, wielding immense power
over communications, become part of the media cabal to promote an agenda. This is resulting in the squelching and
censoring of opinion they don’t like and undermining diversity and the free
exchange of ideas.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, the government has
joined the action of those who use coercive power and censorship to curtail any
opinion or factual information that is contrary to its agenda.
Dividing the people into groups in a way
designed to make them hate or be alienated from one another has been a common
tactic of those who wish to impose their will over others—divide and
conquer. This has escalated in recent
years to the point that it must be dealt with or the nation will fragment
(Balkanize) to the point of societal destruction.
While a certain degree of election fraud has
existed; in recent years, the forms of election fraud have increased
dramatically, to the point that a significant share of the public have
justification to question the integrity of past and future elections, if
something is not done to rectify
the problem, which Congress does have the Constitutional authority to do.
Government imposed censorship, condemnation, and even
criminalization of dissenting opinions:
In recent years, what is construed as the
“politically correct” opinion on an issue—such as climate change, sexual
orientation, election integrity, and a growing number of issues has
increasingly become something that is destroying our First Amendment
Rights. Increasingly, people are fearful
that they could be socially ostracized, lose their jobs, and even have their
homes invaded by a swarm of armed government agents—and arrested for the crime
of exercising their First Amendment Rights.
This is chilling to the idea of people at the grass roots even getting
together to discuss issues of relevancy.
The above is not an exhaustive list of what is going
wrong, but it is to point out significant milestones on the progress away from
the original intent of our Constitutional Republic:
“We the People of the United States, in Order
to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America.”
We have reached a crisis stage.
To repeat what was stated at the start: It
is time to restore the damage done to our Constitutional Republic since its
founding and clearly establish the policy under which our national government
is to operate.
Developing the grass roots is where it must
start if we are to gain lasting traction.
Read and think about the importance of these four
issues, then discuss it with others, as educating the public to the
importance is the only way we can overcome the resistance of the swamp of
corruption and truly have a hope of restoring self-government as a viable
option for this nation.