"As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an immediate sympathy with, the people." ("The Federalist Papers. No. 52: The House of Representatives" (Madison)).
The national government established by the Constitution provided for a House of Representatives that, of the three branches of government, would be closest to the people as described in the above quote. Along with the limited powers granted by the Constitution and the checks and balances among the three branches, the "Peoples House" would be less susceptible to the more permanent branches of government (and presumably other influences as well) to be seduced. Under this concept, liberty would be protected.
We have come a long way from the Constitutional concept. We have in the House today many representatives that are not "immediately dependent on" the people but dependent on moneyed interests for campaign funds. They have become a closed society of political insiders, dismissive of voter concerns and arrogant in the power they have and which they continue to accumulate. They have become career politicians, in office too long, remote and aloof from their constituents.
In another statement in the "Federalist Papers" (No. 52) cited above, Madison states: "It is a received and well-founded maxim that----the greater the power is, the shorter ought to be its duration, and conversely, the smaller the power, the more safely may its duration be protracted."
Applied to total time in office, that is, the number of terms served by representatives, we would conclude that many representatives in modern government should return to private life. There are two factors that make our time significantly different from Madison's. First, the Federal Government, including the House of Representatives, has much more power than it did previously and secondly, representatives stay in office, for a variety of reasons, longer than is prudent for a free society.
We need to resolve the problem that the House of Representatives is not truly representative of the people. What is the solution? In my opinion, the only long term and realistic answer is a constitutional amendment that provides for term limits. More about that in future postings; in the meantime, I welcome your comments.
The national government established by the Constitution provided for a House of Representatives that, of the three branches of government, would be closest to the people as described in the above quote. Along with the limited powers granted by the Constitution and the checks and balances among the three branches, the "Peoples House" would be less susceptible to the more permanent branches of government (and presumably other influences as well) to be seduced. Under this concept, liberty would be protected.
We have come a long way from the Constitutional concept. We have in the House today many representatives that are not "immediately dependent on" the people but dependent on moneyed interests for campaign funds. They have become a closed society of political insiders, dismissive of voter concerns and arrogant in the power they have and which they continue to accumulate. They have become career politicians, in office too long, remote and aloof from their constituents.
In another statement in the "Federalist Papers" (No. 52) cited above, Madison states: "It is a received and well-founded maxim that----the greater the power is, the shorter ought to be its duration, and conversely, the smaller the power, the more safely may its duration be protracted."
Applied to total time in office, that is, the number of terms served by representatives, we would conclude that many representatives in modern government should return to private life. There are two factors that make our time significantly different from Madison's. First, the Federal Government, including the House of Representatives, has much more power than it did previously and secondly, representatives stay in office, for a variety of reasons, longer than is prudent for a free society.
We need to resolve the problem that the House of Representatives is not truly representative of the people. What is the solution? In my opinion, the only long term and realistic answer is a constitutional amendment that provides for term limits. More about that in future postings; in the meantime, I welcome your comments.
I think the idea of term limits is viable. I guarantee very few people really know what they are voting for anyway when you get below votes for president (although a cynic would point out that a very small percentage know what they are voting for when picking a president as well). People vote either party line or for/against the incumbent based upon their emotions at that moment in time. Somehow eliminating all campaign funding would level the playing field, but would never happen since those who benefit from the current system would be voting on such changes. If, to be on the ballot, you merely needed to collect a certain number of signatures, there could be debates, radio/tv interviews and websites that could do the rest of the work to differentiate candidates without incurring millions is expenses for attack ads, positive ads, signage, and staff.
ReplyDeleteHi Norm.I found your statement from Madison concerning power relative to duration of time served to be a fascinating paradox.I believe that part of this relates to the premise that the more power also presents the unfortunate opportunity for more potential corruption.That's my take on it anyhow.I really enjoyed this post.
ReplyDelete