A service provided by The Olympian NEWS ONLINE WEB SPECIALS
FEATURED SUBSCRIBER
THE OLYMPIAN
|
|
| Opinion Tuesday, October 14, 2000 Not said in the election ON THE RIGHT: Election fatigue? "We the People" have lost control of the reins of government GARY PREBLE OLYMPIA -- Having reached election fatigue several months ago, I find it difficult to say anything that hasn't already been said in a general sense. George Bush has been calling for less government and lower taxes. He appears to be serious about it, and it is certainly consistent with the direction of the Republican-controlled Congress. It's making an impact on the left wing as well. Just last week Al Gore announced that he had a new plan to make government smaller. Even the big-government types have to at least make a show of reducing government. Tax reduction is certainly a good start. If the beast hasn't as much to eat, it won't get as fat. And there is unmistakable evidence that the populace is no longer willing to let the liberals and statists fund their lust for more government programs. Most people feel the pinch in their own pocketbooks. Some even recognize that the real motivation behind liberalism is having power over people. But the problem is more fundamental -- "We the People" have lost control of the reins of government. And that loss of control has ushered in the last 70 years of government expansion. Though that period has been virtually controlled by the Democrats, many Republicans also got to liking the perks of more government. So how did "We the People" lose control? It began in 1913 when two amendments to the U.S. Constitution -- the 16th and 17th -- radically changed the relationship of the states to the federal government. The 16th Amendment allowed a tax on the income of individual citizens. Previously, the Constitution required that the federal government fund itself by taxing the states, but individuals could not be taxed. The 17th Amendment allowed U.S. senators to be elected by direct vote of the people. Previously, senators had been elected by the state legislatures, and the people voted directly only for their U.S. representative. While each of these amendments had some egalitarian appeal, the net result was that the states no longer exerted any real protection of their citizens against the feds. In the first place, the federal government could feed itself by going directly to the people. Secondly, there was no deliberative group looking over the shoulders of the senators. In short, the state's protective function in the constitutional balance of powers had been taken away. The state as an entity (as different from the state as a group of individual citizens) was no longer represented in Congress. Nor any longer could it exert control over how Congress collected money. A moment's reflection would show that without the protection of the state, the people are less able individually to direct the course of the federal government. The modern Democratic Party will of course never subjugate its lust for more government, though it may attempt to appear docile around election time. The Republicans, if they ever take a deep breath of the pure air of liberty, could possibly recognize the dangers that have followed the political emasculation of the states. But so long as the 16th and 17th amendments stand, there is only limited protection for the citizenry from whatever the federal government wants to force upon us.
Gary Preble, an attorney in private practice in Olympia, can be reached at preble@olywa.net Letters to the Editor We want to hear from you. Click here to email your comments. The Olympian Copyright 2000 |
News | Weather | Classifieds |
Automotive | Employment | Apartments | Real Estate
|
