No Affiliation Alliance

The Balance of Power

popular_vote_balance_of_power_1_600w

By: Robert Marcoccio

The use of popular vote began in 1804 by the state of Maine for President of the United States. It was not till 1824 that the use of popular vote became the mandate to select electors to represent a state that voted for an authorized candidate for president.

The Electoral College is a method of indirect election that was developed to distribute the balance of power in the election process that would not subordinate smaller states to the vast populations of the larger states. It was also created to resolve a problem experienced in the first attempt to establish a simple republic under the Articles of Confederation that created a situation where the smaller states could stalemate a legislation that would be beneficial to a larger state, because each state had an equal vote of one. So the Electoral College was a process of voter management that was most effective in delivering a fair result in the fundamental foundation of a democracy – the rule of majority.

The first attempt to use popular vote
to resolve a state issue was introduced by the Compromise of 1850 that gave it the right of all new states that entered the Union the ability to vote to establish itself as a free state or a slave state. In 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Act which revoked the Missouri Compromise, became an issue of heated controversy when the new state of Kansas could choose by popular vote (popular sovereignty) if it would be free state or slave state. What resulted was citizens from both slave states and non-slave states began to move into the state of Kansas to vote to influence the issue to their own favor. This resulted in the first unofficial battle of the Civil War in the “free soil” settlement of Lawrence Kansas, which was burnt to the ground in 1856.

The right to regulate elections methods was that of the state as demonstrated by the state of Maine and other states that followed the course, and when a majority of states was achieved it became mandated to law and the provisions of the Constitution that regarded this event were modified.

After the Civil War and reconstruction, the use of popular vote began to develop further with the Fifteenth Amendment which was ratified to protect the voting rights of former slaves and in result protected the rights of the poor who were in the past exempted from the right to vote by charges of fee taxes, the requirement to be a land owner and the ability to be able to read and write.

In 1890 the state of Oregon became the first state to use popular vote to elect a state senator. The choice to move toward popular vote came from a continuous result of deadlock legislative sessions which left vacancies within the legislatures for months was compounded by a suspicion of existing corrupted forces by special interest within the autocracy and compelling charges of bribery to buy seats. The use of popular vote followed the pattern established in 1804 with the presidential election and other states began to follow the precedent set by Oregon. By 1912 more than 29 states were using popular vote by their own free will to elect state senators. During this time three more states were admitted to the Union and those states voluntarily elected to use the process of popular vote to elect state senators. So the process of adopting popular vote to elect United State Senators was not a radical change, but gradual choice by state discretion.

In 1913 the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified (April 8, 1913) to the Constitution which mandated the use of popular vote to elect the United States Senate. The Seventeenth Amendments only function was to make popular vote unilateral throughout the country. The only authority it removed from the states was the option to choose between the two methods, the first described in Article I and the other adopted by state discretion. To repeal the Seventeenth Amendment would require convincing two thirds of the Congress to agree to revoke the method of popular vote that was used to elect them to office. Should this attempt be successful what does it accomplish? The only authority it returns to the states is the option to choose between one method and the other because it still remains the discretion of the state to regulate its own state elections. To accomplish this task now requires state delegates to agree to rescind the process of popular vote to reinstate the old process that would more than likely be a career ending decision – good luck with making that happen!

There is an option though. It is called popular vote or state referendum. State referendum has been gaining popularity since the 1990’s to decline legislations such as same sex marriage and other moral issues. Nearly 30 states now use state referendum to challenge and revoke legislation at state level. So if your state already uses popular vote to repeal legislations then it may be possible to initiate a popular vote to challenge the use of popular vote to elect United States Senators state by state, but only if the Seventeenth Amendment is first repealed, which brings us back to square one. Question is, is it worth the energy?

The argument to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment is that some of the elected officials have become indoctrinated to their congressional seats and have become dysfunctional and are more a detriment to their office than a benefit to the community they serve. State Senate was never intended to be a lifelong position. At the same time, I can argue that if the United State Senate was chosen by popular vote perhaps as early as the 1830’s perhaps the issue of slavery could have been resolved without a Civil War. Perhaps the evolution of democracy is not in turning back the clock but looking forward to honing to precision the process of popular vote in its application to the civilian checks and balances that would make all elected officials more accountable for their actions.

Since the end of the Civil War and the Reconstruction Act that was used to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment in a controversial manner. The Supreme Court began to use judicial review in a way that expanded the authority of the Federal Government to enforce the Federal Constitution against the states. The Federal Constitution was not considered applicable against the state prior to the Civil War. It was not until 1875 when the Supreme Court began to assume the discretion to facilitate this alternate mode of making law by expanded interpretation of case law with intent to rewrite the Constitution and redefine the English language.

By 1937 many parts of the New Deal of Socialism were ruled by the court as being unconstitutional. One case in particular, Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States (1936) ruled that the Presidents use of discretion to allow independent agencies, and private industry to make law was unconstitutional stating that “only Congress can make law”. A year later in a similar case (NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp-1937) the court over ruled its own decision also under a situation of controversy. This ruling was acquired through and expanded interpretation that disregarded the “liberty of Contract” clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The use of expanded interpretation gave the President the authority to make law through independent agencies and by-pass the required use of Article I Section 7, which is the process of the checks and balances to make legislation by the rule of majority. This ruling by the court elevated the board of directors of private sector non-government offices an equal authority as Congress to make law, creating an infra structure not authorized by the Constitution which requires only the signature of the President to become law. This community of unauthorized legislature is the second alternate mode of making legislation that avoids the required rule of majority.

Prior to the Civil War, the Supreme Court made a ruling that professes that because of our system of open elections that the final consent of the people ended with our vote to elect an official. This reasoning came with it the need for an elected official to have a discretional authority to be able to perform their duties. This also burdens the people to be victim of the consequence of inept politicians, creating inept legislations that allow the official to fail without penalty, and many times this loophole has been used to defraud the people without retribution even when fraud is obvious.

The point I am making is that the problem may not so much be the length of the terms of the United State Senate, but the use of alternative modes in creating legislation that avoid the required rule of majority. The relevance of the previous mentioned ruling is that prior to the Civil War all legislation was made by Congress (with the exception to the Louisiana Purchase and purchase of Alaska by presidential treaty). This ruling by the court in regards to the peoples final consent is obsolete, because the new processes of making legislation avoid the rule of majority, and thereby do not retain the final consent of the people, and this brings us back to the topic of popular vote.

To enforce the Constitution upon the Supreme Court and the federal legislative branches would immediately render all legislations that have been created by expanded interpretation or by independent agencies null and void. Many of the inner department agencies and programs will also be rendered unconstitutional. This may sound like a victory, but will give instead the enemies of our democracy exactly what they want, a national emergency that will give them the constitutional authority to declare martial law, and with that the authority for instating a nationalized government. So what do we do?

The Civilian Checks and Balances

The Constitution is a series of checks in balances and Article I Section 7 is specific to the creation of making legislation. Other systems of checks and balances are created by the authorities granted to the federal government and authorities reserved to the states jurisdictions that are protected by the sovereignty of State Constitution. The separation of the judiciary and the legislative branches is another of the checks and balances. The separation of the House of Representatives which have control over the budget from the United States Senate that make the laws is another. The most important series of checks and balances are in the oaths of office required to be taken by officials elected to office especially that of the President (Article II Section 2) to enforce the Constitution which includes the guarantee of a republican form of government (Article IV Section 4).

Our federalist republican form of government is maintained by state jurisdiction. To eliminate state jurisdiction is to nationalize our government and place all authority and control in a centralized government where even misdemeanor offenses fall under federal jurisdiction and laws are created across the country without regard to the needs of community or regional differences. This is being accomplished through a system of grant bribery which creates unwritten laws by performance usually at the states discretion for money. This is the type of system that is being conspired by a subversive party agenda that extends back to the Reconstruction Act of 1868.

Under a nationalistic system of government the structure of the legislatures changes eliminating the need for state senators, and reducing governors to the equivalent of regional managers. This would place the federal government in a constructional breach and void the Constitution. At this point all authority would return to the state legislatures under Article V to convene a convention of states to address the breach in trust as part of the checks and balances against oppressive government. State convention excludes the participation of the Federal Government which would be in contempt of Constitution against the states for altering the construction of government from federalism to nationalism.

Fortunately the original constructionist that collaborated on the design of checks and balances included a civilian checks and balance to counter such an extreme circumstance from evolving. This civilian checks and balance system begins with the rights to assemble, to file grievance, and the right to free speech (First Amendment), the right to vote, and hold free elections (Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments), the right to convene a convention of states to address breaches in the trust (Article V), and the right to maintain a civilian militia to defend against the threat of tyranny domestic and foreign (Second Amendment).

What is missing from this civilian checks and balances is a step that would allow the people to challenge any legislation created by the alternate modes of creating legislation manifested since the end of the Civil War to include: The use of expanded interpretation of case law to rewrite the Constitution and increase the authority of other branches over another, the use of expanded interpretation that creates legislation, the use of independent agencies to make law, the use of grant bribery that play upon the use of state discretion that reduce our civil liberties to privileges granted by government, the use of reconciliation which was originally created in 1971 to expedite the merging of two existing government departments or budgets and not for the purpose of making legislation, and use of treaty made in a foreign forum that obstruct the performance of our domestic industry, or allow international regulations and taxes to be imposed upon American citizens.

Each of the above mentioned modes being used to create codes, and legislations are in design to avoid the rule of majority and should be subject to Federal Referendum if for no less a reason than that all laws created by these unauthorized processes do not carry the final consent of the people, because they were not processed to legislation through Article I Section 7, or were not created by Congress as required by Article I Section 1.

Popular vote is a process of direct democracy, but does not alter our federalist republic as long as it does not disregard the Tenth Amendment right of jurisdiction. Unlike National referendum which revokes state jurisdiction. Federal referendum enforces the use of state jurisdiction by establishing the event of a popular vote around the use of state referendum.

Each state, in control of its own process of elections would hold a referendum on a federal ballot to determine the outcome of a legislation created by an unauthorized mode. The accumulation of each state referendum in a majority will determine if a legislation created by these alternate modes are to be within reason, or not. This method is the Constitutional authority of the people to final consent by rule of majority which these alternate modes deny to the people and are unconstitutional. The use of Federal Referendum offers a systematic and coordinated means of addressing the breach in trust that have been perpetrated by the Federal Government without causing a major disruption in the legislative process or operation of government offices.

There is a proposed amendment referred to as Absolute Consent which establishes a guideline to the use of Federal Referendum by popular vote. What the proposed amendment states is that it is the property of the people to determine if legislation goes beyond reason or not. It also confines the amendment to the law and constraints of the Constitution so that it cannot be used in an inappropriate manner, but if legislation is discouraged from being created by any alternate mode that avoids majority rule as a result of this proposed amendment then this concern is not bound to happen although the idea should not be entirely discarded.

The use of state referendum creates a system of checks and balances to discourage fraud by retaining the authority of state jurisdiction over the process. It is a most important factor that state protect their Tenth Amendment rights, and that the people insure that the Governor, and state senate reject any legislation that lessens state jurisdiction, because once state jurisdiction is eliminated so goes the right of the people to regulate themselves locally.

The proposed Amendment of Absolute Consent states its purpose but to insure that its use is appropriate it must be legislated by federal and state legislation to determine the detailed requirements of majority, and the regulation of the elections state to state. The process of initiative (petition) requirements for a popular vote of an issue to be brought before a mandate ballot on the federal level, and the required procedure to bring forth a popular vote through the legislature (referendum) which should require a congressmen to introduce a bill before Congress that was created by an alternate mode that did not receive the final consent of the people by rule of majority. It is the matrix of constitutional, federal and state law that is what creates an infra-structure of checks and balances found throughout the Constitution. It is why the text of the Constitution seems vague and is regarded more as a guideline to constrain and limit the federal and state governments to the confines of limited government, leaving the only authority to decide to be within reason, the people. This authority being denied to the people by means of alternate modes must be enforced through popular vote on a federal level as it has been on state.

The need to retain state and federal jurisdiction as separate legislation is the requirements may need to be adjusted from time to time for efficiency purposes. The advantages of this amendment will be to discourage the influence of special interest, to divert subversive agenda of party, to coordinate a systematic elimination of frivolous taxes, and regulations. Popular vote is a means to protect ourselves from legislation being imposed upon us by foreign commercial organizations or international corporate government by reinforcing state jurisdiction to secure our right to self rule and self preservation. To review the proposed amendment, visit www.RMmediaPressRelease.com

To hesitate and question the proposed amendment is rational, but to do nothing at all will result in the inevitable demise of our system of government faltering into despotism. Popular vote may become more a reality after the coming elections; with the results we are all hoping for vanishing in the fog of political rhetoric and divisive schemes to defraud the people with emergency sessions of Congress that are legal and constitutional, but have been used in the past to defraud the people as with other modes to simply avoid the rule of majority. The experiment to form a more perfect union between government and industry can only be achieved by the people with popular vote being the key.


(Advertisement) | More on this subject from author Robert Marcoccio:

Filed Under: FeaturedIssues and Articles

RSSComments (0)

Trackback URL

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.