Michael raises an interesting question below about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the U.S. Constitution.
Two quick reactions:
First, of course the Constitution was flawed. It resulted from political compromise and among its many glaring deficiencies, it accepted slavery (article I, section II) and in article IV, section II even called for sending escaped slaves back.
Second, Michael is right on the money when he concludes with the following. “Unfortunately, Madison and the other Founders never envisioned the rise of the counter-revolutionary Progressive Movement that set out to destroy the Constitution and the emergence of Constitutional law captive of the “living document” idea.”
The Constitution recognizes three levels of sovereignty in the federal structure. There is the individual, the several states and the national government. We have certainly seen power centralize away from individuals and away from the states at the national level. However, it is a stretch too far to say that all of the problems are a result of flaws from the original Constitution. We need to remember that our Constitution differs from Madison’s in important respects. Some of these changes are good. See above. Some are not so good.
The Progressives, in an effort to move toward more direct democracy and away from the republican (as in representative, not big-R partisan) nature of our government did large and lasting damage early in the 20th century. The passage of the 17th amendment effectively stripped a key protection for state interests out of the governmental charter. Prior to 1913, states — as independent sovereigns — selected their U.S. Senators. After direct election was instituted, members if the U.S. Senate went to Washington and soon enough thought of themselves as agents of the federal government. Prior to the 17th amendment and direct election, if a state — typically through the legislature or the Governor — did not like what their Senators were doing…if the Senators were advocating the interests of the federal government over the state government…the state could recall the Senators and replace them with someone more attuned to local concerns. The indirect election of Senators — along with equal representation for every state regardless of size or population — was an important check against federal overreach at the expense of state government. These checks effectively said, “Hey, states have a critical role to play here.” The Progressives eliminated this protection and paved the way for unchecked growth of federal power.
