I totally agree, Connor! As I was reading this it reminded me of this article.

The suit alleges that the law violates the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which reserves to the states all powers except those granted to the federal government. It also alleges that the law violates Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which limits the power of Congress to attach conditions to the receipt of federal funds.

What I find interesting, is that no matter what happens in this case, we lose something. For example, if the Supreme Court chooses to uphold the state’s right to define marriage as it sees fit, DOMA is dead. If, on the other hand, the court upholds the DOMA, it will be another blow to state’s rights, effectively giving the federal government the power to define marriage for the states. This could open the door for the congress to pass a bill ordering all states to allow same-sex marriage. In effect, it would void all of the work that has been done in the states that have passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

I must admit, Attorney General Coakley is pretty clever. What an ingenious move.

My question is, what would be the best counter move?

Connor,

I think it would be an incomplete argument if we did not include the issue of representation in the house.

At least the 16th & 17th amendments permit the changes. But nothing changed the Constitutional representation of the House. They just up and decided it was time — for practicality.

It was a one-two punch. It made the House out-of-touch with the masses. And it made the Senate non-responsive to the states. So we have a Congress that doesn’t answer to anyone. Then a President that answers only to Congress. And we have a Supreme Court that answers to no one.

I’ve been wondering what the solution is. Here is the problem with “fixing” things.

1) If we try to fix things too quickly, the nation will fall apart. We have grown too dependent on government. I dare say even the most independent/libertarians among us (there are some exceptions like the seed guy).

2) If we slowly try to fix things, generations will pass and we will forget what we were trying to do to fix them.

3) The obvious solution APPEARS to be revolution. But this is always a wild card. Better to suffer those ills we have, than to fly to others we know not of.

So the only solution is a revolution led by a group that are widely accepted as a freedom & peace loving, moral & honest people. Hmmm. But WHO? WHO? Hmmm.

Which leads me to:

MOMMA,

I both agree and disagree with the catch 22 that Coakley presents.

ON THE ONE HAND: DOMA only restricts one states right to enforce its will on another state. This is perfectly Constitutional and does not take anything away from a State’s right to legislate within its own jurisdiction.

ON THE OTHER HAND: If we consider what happened with Roe v. Wade (which wasn’t really as bad as pro-lifers make it out to be) then we must consider what such a current ruling would do to lesser courts’ and future Supreme Courts’ ability to interpret this ruling into rulings currently unintended.

If this happens. I believe this to be the seminal issue that will ignite the move by the states toward secession/revolution. Other issues such as gun ownership, abortion, family rights, etc. are the fuel waiting for the spark.

You’ve witnessed the infighting that conservatives and even libertarians (and other third parties) exhibit. Secession will be likely to provoke anarchy. Where will the order come from?

There is only ONE group that makes so much effort towards organization, society-building skills, self-sufficiency, and morality.

I believe Katrina was a dry run to see where we can improve in our ability to help where disaster hits–Disasters like, oh, idunno . . . CIVIL WAR?

I might have to change my handle to LoquaciousCarb. :)

The Case Against the Fed is as timely today as when it was first written. Great post. Most are unaware of how our governmental system has been modified and the impact those changes have on our system of government.

Great article Conner. Keep up the good work, and hopefully America’s fire for Liberty will be rekindled.

The most galling part is that so many states agreed to be cut out of the picture. Just as Congress abdicates authority to the executive to avoid responsibility, so too did states give up their voice in the federal government to avoid being blamed for anything going wrong.

The degenerated, democratic alternative we have today involves the direct election of senators, and thus subjects them to the passions of the people rather than the will of the states.

I think I agree with you Connor, but one question I have is this: what is the difference between the “passions of the people” and the “will of the states”? Is not a state legislature elected by the people and a senator elected by the people and the decisions they make a manifestation of the passions of the people?

What changes when a senator is elected by the legislature versus by the people directly if the legislature is elected by the people? I guess it removes one level of accountability between the two, but I’m not completing understanding how the 17th amendment removes power from the “state” when the people in each state still elect the senator who represents them.

It seems that election by the legislature would provide some stability to counter the passions of the people, but I’m not sure the effect is as dramatic as Ames and you claim.

Thanks, Connor, I think I understand better what you mean now.

I see what you’re saying about people focusing more on federal issues than state and local, but I still don’t know if the effect is as dramatic as it might seem. People are always concerned, to some degree, about what effect federal legislation has on their state and local governments, or at least what they can get from the federal government (e.g. earmarks). In Utah, we constantly read in the news about nuclear waste policies that will affect the state, NCLB, public lands, energy policy (oil shale, natural gas, etc.), the BCS, to name some. But I think what you’re pointing out is the difference between people that live together in a state who are concerned about issues that affect them as individuals versus a state government (legislature, executive) as an entity that is concerned about issues that affect state government and, therefore, the people of that state indirectly.

Now, if the people of each state collectively were to vote on every federal bill rather than a senator elected to represent them, then the effects of what you’re describing would be very extreme.

Very interesting post.

Connor & JHP: There are further issues with regard to the election of Senators.

FIRST:

The initial reason there was a Senate anyway was that the Roman Senate showed that there was a great advantage in giving some political power to the wealthy (like England’s House of Lords).

When the wealthy wish to maintain their wealth, they tend to know how to invest and how the economy grows best (or else their wealth is lost). By having wealthy people in a group help make policy, this will help the economic health of the people.

But to safeguard against an oligarchy, the House of Representatives (commons) was created to counter any selfish motives of the Senators. And all bills are supposed to originate in the House–nowhere else. Again, no amendment. They just up and decided to change that.

SECOND:

Senators were to be selected by State Legislatures because it was believed that state officials would have a better handle on the who’s who of politics. Senators would be more educated, politically aware, and successful individuals. Such people would be more “out-of-touch” with the common man. But they would have a greater view of the long term effects of laws. (IDEALLY).

The House, on the other hand, was to be elected by the relatively ignorant masses (although the masses in the colonists day were much more educated than today’s college graduates). They would be subject to the passions of the people. They were not allowed to take extra time to consider if the people really knew what they were doing. They voted the will of the people. The only recourse was if the law violated the Constitution, they could vote against it even if the people wanted to pass it. This was yet another “brake” in the “engine”.

The hope (ideally) was that if the common man saw the immediate benefits, and the aristocracy saw the long term benefits, maybe this was a good law.

What we have instead is some sort of hybrid which essentially gives us an elected oligarchy. If you think this is an oxymoron, consider how many career politicians there are no matter how bad they mess up. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, just keep an eye on Al Franken and watch what happens (if there’s time).

I stand corrected.

But… come to think of it. Aren’t most bills nowadays essentially some form of revenue bill?

Of all the people I know, there are maybe 2 or 3 who understand what the Senate was originally supposed to be and why. They don’t teach that in public school.

(I also disagree with the 17th amendment), but I thought the reason they passed the 17th amendment was [mainly] because by that time, popular election of Senators was the de-facto standard anyway. I thought it worked like this: the state legislature choose for their senators whoever the people (by popular vote) told them to choose. Though I think I’m way oversimplifying it (or possibly just wrong altogether). See “Historical Background” section at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

That was interesting background. Thanks, Eddie.