“But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, ‘Give us a king to judge us.’ So Samuel prayed to the Lord . And the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.’”
I Samuel 8:6-7
Just as the Israelites sought some great, benevolent dictator to provide their every need, and many luxuries, human nature craves the ease of benevolent provision. It is not in the nature of man to look for the hard way to satisfy our cravings. It is the rare, and admirable fellow that chooses to sacrifice his/her efforts, and the fruits thereof, in the pursuit for selfless advancement, Jesus being our only true representative of such selfless sacrifice.
While there are historical, and even contemporary examples of those that strive to imitate Jesus, these individuals are few, and far between. I ask you, are you one of them? I assure you that, though I wish to be one, I am not.
This dilemma reminds me of scripture,
“For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice.”
Romans 7:19
The framers of our constitutional republic recognized the pitfalls of human nature incapsulated in the quote by James Madison , in Federalist 51, “If Men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself.”
This is the great challenge in the governance of men, (men and women represented in the word, MEN.) Our framers sought to create just such a government, relying on the mercy, grace, and omniscience of an almighty, loving GOD to provide success, through His providence alone.
As with these records by the Apostle Paul, and Samuel, the great sticking point is the very nature of mankind. Those of us that want to serve our God faithfully, are still plagued with the weakness that draws us to reject the wisdom, and provision of our Heavenly Father, in favor of the worldly provision of our wants, and needs, by some earthly person, or policy, (preferably by the easiest, least painful way possible.)
The framers of the US Constitution viewed separated powers, and the use of a democratically controlled, constitutional republic, as the most likely instrument to allow for the faithful governance of a broken, fallen, sinful people. Governance was to be accomplished by laws, laws that were to apply to ALL, regardless of wealth, position, stature, or power.
Such laws would only be possible by the proposal, and deliberation of representatives of the governed. Just, and faithful representation was determined to be possible by the use of a bicameral Congress. One body which represented the American citizenry, (The House of Representatives,) and another body which represented the several states, (the Senate.) This Congress would be charged with the ability, and responsibility for the creation of laws, and statutes. The Executive, (or President,) would be charged with the execution of those laws, and the Supreme Court would be given the power of adjudication.
In this manor, tyranny by the few, and the majority would be limited. The 17th Amendment of the US Constitution corrupted the Senate, and reduced its significance to a redundant political popularity contest, providing for the popular vote of the state’s citizenry to elect Senators. This did not increase the political power of the individual citizen, rather it diluted that power, while removing the political voice of the several states in constitutional, and statutory construction.
If it is possible to correct the course of our nation, it will require a return to the reverence of our God, His word, and respect for the Constitution’s framers, and the product of their work. We will need to be willing to make the hard choices, to seek the glory of godliness, and the reward of righteousness. No amount of reliance on benevolent dictators, or mob rule will correct the corrupt path that our nation finds itself on today. We must repent, trusting in the omnipresent mercy of our Lord Jesus, and His Father, Almighty God, and determine in our hearts, to extend grace and mercy to our fellow Americans, and politicians, while holding them accountable to the rule of nature, and nature’s God as well as the US Constitution. There can be no political salvation in any other.
God bless you, Dave
US Senate
Article 1, section 3, (in part)
“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.”
Federalist 62, (on the Senate)
“..It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the APPOINTMENT OF SENATORS BY THE STATE LEGISLATORS. . . . It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the state governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government. . . .
The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. . . .
In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each state, is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual states, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. . . .
Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the states. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may, in some instances, be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defence which it involves in favour of the smaller states, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other states, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger states will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser states; and as the facility and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the constitution may be more convenient in practice, than it appears to many in contemplation. . . .”
17th Amendment to the US Constitution,
“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.”
The feature, “ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE,” of the 17th Amendment is a direct contradiction of, “ APPOINTMENT OF SENATORS BY THE STATE LEGISLATORS,” of Article 1, Section 3, and removes the authority of the individual states to have a voice in the formation of federal legislation.
(Addendum to, “Give us a king to judge us.”)
It has been brought to my attention that some of you, maybe even many of you might be confused about my reference to the 17th Amendment, and whether it might be detrimental to the cause of American liberty.
It seems to me that there are two main ways that one might address this dilemma. We could ignore it, and continue with our present understanding, or misunderstanding of the matter, or we could choose to research it, challenging our notion of the legitimacy, or illegitimacy of the 17th Amendment.
This choice is ours, but the fruit of these choices will be self-evident, and will translate to our effectiveness in our patriotic efforts to support, and defend our constitutional republic.
I believe that our first order of business is to ascertain the reasoning behind the original structure of our Constitution. This could require reading, and studying the Constitution itself, and the Federalist Papers, though this is not a quick fix.
Our quest might be streamlined a bit. The very first Article of the US Constitution concerns the purpose, and makeup of the US Congress. It doesn’t take much effort to grasp, from the text, that the House of Representatives is to represent the individual citizens’ concerns, and political choices. The Senate is declared quite plainly to consist of representatives of the states. The name of our country, the one who’s governing document we are discussing, is the United States of America.
This is a group of states, united in a grouping, and alliance, for the furtherance, and protection of the many. Therefore, each state was to govern itself. Mobility is a chief feature of liberty, if we decide that we cannot abide the choices of the majority of our fellow citizens, we are free to relocate to a state who’s citizens’ priorities more closely align with our own.
With that said, each, and all of these states, in order to profit from this alliance, must be represented nationally, and the vehicle provided in Article 1 of the US Constitution is the Senate. Each state, regardless of population, economic power, or worldly influence, has exactly two Senators, and therefore, equal voice in the Senate. This was to give voice to the specific cultures, and values of the particular states where we citizens, either were born into, or chose to relocate. The 17th Amendment undermined this objective by giving the choice of Senators to the popular vote of the state’s citizens. No longer are these representatives selected by the state, to protect the standards, and values of the state at large, rather, the Senatorial candidates pleas will be to the individual voters, and seek to entice them on personal grounds.
These points might be either disproven, or confirmed, by reading, first, Article 1, then the 17th Amendment. If we read the 17th Amendment alone, we will likely find no reason to oppose its goal, or reasoning, but if we first seek to understand how, and why, Article 1 was intentionally constructed in the way that it was, we may come to a different conclusion.
God bless you, Dave