2011 Congress: Evidence of a brilliantly designed Constitution

Founder Edmund Randolph, in the Constitutional Debates said:

Will not the people choose men of integrity, and in similar circumstances with themselves, to represent them? What laws can they make that will not operate on themselves and friends, as well as on the rest of the people? Will the people reelect the same men to repeat oppressive legislation? Will the people commit suicide against themselves, and discard all those maxims and principles of interest and self-preservation, which actuate mankind in all their transactions?

Unfortunately, the history of the last century has shown what happens when a citizenry ignores the self-inflicted wounds of apathy that Randolph argues against. One might argue that, defending the power of the House to direct election, and thus representation of the people—as a counter to the representation of the Senate on behalf of the states—was ill-conceived, or at least a naïve notion. That was at least until Friday, February 18, 2011.

Elected by the people from virtually every state across the nation in the preceding November election of 2010, the House of Representatives took remarkable and historic action. They refused to fund major sections of many departments within the Executive branch, mostly created by more liberal past Congresses. The Healthcare Act is not funded. Planned Parenthood, responsible for the bulk of nearly a half million abortions yearly, was not funded. The EPA was not funded. “Pet-projects” in districts of the Representatives supporting these measures were not funded.

While some are saying conservative representatives, as a trade off to liberals, voted to ‘defund’ projects and entities within their own districts, it may actually show Representatives’ understanding of the very concept Edmund Randolph spoke to when defending the right of the people to direct representation. The Representatives are subject to their own actions. Additionally, critics are viewing funding from the eye of socialistic paradigms, assuming that if the government doesn’t fund a project, it simply will not happen.

But contrary to the illusion portrayed by President Obama in his State of the Union address just a couple weeks ago that government funding is needed for innovation, great inventions, ingenuity and progress from our past were not projects funded by Federal grants. They were funded through the non-governmental ingenuity, imagination, and creative—sometimes very patient—collection of resources individuals and private enterprise could muster. The current House of Representatives understand this.

All the above give understanding then, to why this band of courageous legislators are cutting spending anywhere it is deemed either inappropriate, irresponsible in the context of Constitutionality, or fiscal nonsense for the government to continue to support.

But the most phenomenal occurrence is this: A witness that our Constitution works. The Congress’ most recent action proves the beauty of a highly complicated and well thought out system of checks and balances between, not just the three branches of our government, but the powers of our country: the People, the States (via the governors solely, since the 17th Amendment has rendered the Senate impotent to represent the states as originally designed), the Executive Branch (namely, the President, himself), the Senate, the House, and the Judiciary. While past Senates and Houses of Representatives, may vote in unconstitutional acts, and the President may promote them, even actively push them, in the end it is the people’s representatives who have the last say. They have been given sole power not to act on Acts of Congress. No other branch can stop the House from not acting. No other power can force the House against the will of the people. And while a president may impose his or her own agenda upon Americans, either directly, through deceptive actions or usurpation of their power, or indirectly via unfamiliar U.N. resolutions even supported by the Senate, or “closed door” legislation” (read: “back-room dealing”), in the end, the answer back on funding, may be “no, and end of debate.”

So, while Americans may slide, to suffer the consequences of neglect, current history answers Randolph’s questions, “Will the people reelect the same men to repeat oppressive legislation? Will the people commit suicide against themselves, and discard all those maxims and principles of interest and self-preservation which actuate mankind in all their transactions?”

Ultimately, the answer is no.