One of the ways our Constitution provides for a “more perfect” union is by establishing a variety of checks and balances on federal government power.
But a nation that can be “more perfect” can also become “less perfect,” and advocates for the elimination of those checks and balances are heating up the water in the proverbial pot.
Frogs, pay attention.
Among the least noted of these safeguards are the distinct methods by which the Founders determined legislative, executive, and judicial branch officials would come to power: House members elected by popular vote; senators elected by their respective state legislatures; presidents sworn in after a vote of the Electoral College; and members of the judiciary appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Thus, not only were checks and balances set up between the different branches of government, safeguards were built into even the way officials in those branches come to power.
Call it checks and balances on checks and balances. Yet, if the imprudent class has its way, all four seats of power in the federal government will become subject to the immediate and passionate will—and potentially, tyranny—of the majority.
In the early years of the 20th century, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution enabled popular election of senators, eliminating one of those vital safeguards. There has been an ongoing debate about the wisdom of that decision, but by centralizing more power in the federal government and weakening the states, it’s now apparent that the cure has become worse than the disease.
The Senate, with fewer members than the House, longer terms, and designed intent to thoughtfully and deliberately represent the interests of the states, is now subject to the same whims and passions of “the People’s House.”
Today, we’re seeing methods of accession to power in the other three seats of government under assault. The Senate is threatened by demands for proportional representation; the Supreme Court by proposed term limits and loss of independence; and the Electoral College with elimination entirely—and all because agitators don’t like the passing of a certain bill, the outcome of a specific ruling, or the results of a recent election.
Historical ignorance and a lack of appreciation for (or, in some cases, antipathy toward) the delicate balance the Founders built into the Constitution is stoking the fire under the pot.
If the Senate becomes based on proportional representation of the people, rather than equal representation of the states, our “federal” government will be no more than central government.
Not only will small states lose their voice, the upper chamber will, in practice, be no different from the lower.
There’s little point to having two houses of Congress whose only difference is the length of their terms.
If, in a fit of pique, we expand the Supreme Court and put it under the thumb of the legislative branch, the courts will become subject to the fickle will of an injudicious majority—as will our last line of defense, the Bill of Rights, which is already under attack by the Left, who think it’s outdated and counterproductive.
And if we eliminate the Electoral College, small states can forget ever again having influence in presidential politics. All liberal and left-wing candidates will have to do is pander to their base in populous states such as California and New York, and ignore the middle of the country.
Rural voters would become vassals of the urban class, and 50 states will be subservient to a dozen cities.
So, are we in danger of descending into tyranny?
Not yet.
But eliminating these checks and balances would further clear a pathway to it.
The executive branch has been swamped by an unelected and unaccountable “administrative state.” Congress is too timid to assert its authority in providing effective oversight of executive branch abuses. And the independence of the judiciary is being increasingly challenged via threats and intimidation.
All of this has global implications. More than two centuries ago, the Marquis de Lafayette said, “The welfare of America is bound closely to the welfare of all humanity. She is to become the honored and safe asylum of liberty.”
History has proven him prescient. Where would Europe be today had the United States not been around to join the fight against Nazi Germany? Where would the West be today if we hadn’t stood up the Soviet Union? Where will the world be tomorrow if we forsake our asylum of liberty by capitulating to ignorance and irresponsibility?
Those of us who believe in this “last best hope of man on earth” must step up and defend the safeguards that protect us. We must reawaken to the importance of our constitutional checks and balances and advocate against those who—lacking historical perspective—are blind to unintended consequences.
Though they may one day realize the damage they’ve done, regrets from the gulag are especially bitter.
Conservative philosopher Richard M. Weaver said, “The past shows unvaryingly that when a people’s freedom disappears, it goes not with a bang, but in silence amid the comfort of being cared for.”
The time is past for burying our heads in smartphones and selfish pursuits while our constitutional protections are being dismantled step by step. Once they’re gone, there will be no one to save us.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.