Senator Scott Brown: “This isn’t Ted Kennedy’s seat. This is the people’s seat.”
— When asked if he was worried that a Republican hadn’t held a Massachusetts Senate seat since 1972 (The Boston Globe, Nov. 30, 2009)
True, Ted Kennedy’s claim on a Massachusetts senate seat as a legacy for his family, or those of his political persuasion, was invalid. A Republican winning the seat in 2010 proved that.
However, the phrase ‘The People’s Seat’ calls to mind other questions; namely that of Federalism.
The basic principle of American federalism is based in the Tenth Amendment (ratified in 1791) to the Constitution, which states:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a national (federal) government and various regional governments.
The intent of the bicameral congress was to allow representation of state interests, as well as a more intimate representation of the people. The states had powers reserved to it as a limitation on federal government; and the House maintained the concept of a representative Republic while allowing the voice and will of the people to be heard.
The importance of the People’s Voice can be appreciated in that House members had two-year terms of office.
The interests of each State were represented equally with two senators per state, and maintained a sense of state sovereign continuity through six-year terms of office.
Here is the original method for electing a senator:
Article 1, Sec. 3. Cl. 1
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
Here is the 17th Amendment:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years and each Senator shall have one vote.
This amendment was argued for decades by ‘progressives’ who wanted a more democratic process; but wittingly or unwittingly altered the principal mechanism employed by the framers to protect federalism.
Why is this Important?
At the moment, the Democratic Socialists are intent on creating a nationalized Health Service. Why? The temptation of a tax revenue redistribution from which they and their cronies can skim off the top through fraud and abuse is irresistible.
Under Federalism, the States exercise constitutional control and legitimate interest in the health and welfare of their citizens. Under a ‘public’ federally controlled program, the States lose any control. The health services convert from local to centralized control.
This is a violation of the 10th Amendment.
Control of Doctors and Medical Professionals, predetermining their profession from education to specialty, to where they practice and how, plus how much they can charge, is a form of involuntary servitude.
I am currently reviewing the famous Slaughterhouse case to see if it is on point.
Doctors, hospitals, and insurance subscribers have contractual relationships. For the federal government to create an unconstitutional law breaking those contracts is an Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations.
The ‘Feds’ have no right or constitutional authority to write Healthcare Reform Acts. That is the clear constitutional right of the States.