December 22, 2011--Founder's Intent
We're hearing a lot these days about Founder's Intent. What our nation's founders envisioned for us. Some, like Ron Paul, are literalists--if it isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution than things such ad Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional.
Some, like Newt Gingrich, who proclaim themselves to be historians and constitutional experts (but in truth know less than they assert), want to see things like the coequal component of our governmental system--the judiciary--contained and overseen by a second coequal branch--Congress. Just the other day Newt said that federal judges who rule in ways that the Congress deems to be unconstitutional should be hauled before Congress to defend themselves before being removed from the bench. Literally, he said on Sunday, by the capitol police or the federal marshals. This does not sound like the America our founders intended but rather like the oppressive European governments our ancestors escaped from where the rule of law was nonexistent or perverted in the very same ways Newt sees appropriate for us.
Talking about this the other day with a cousin, he mentioned something our founders indeed intended. Something, he said, I wrote about here on Tuesday--again, with European tyrannies in mind, they did all they could to assure that America would not have an entrenched ruling class.
Their intent was for Congress to be an ever changing, dynamic body that embraced a constant flow of new ideas, concepts and beliefs from among its ever-changing, and growing citizenry. As importantly, and dramatically detailed in their public and private writings, the founders believed that Americans should serve their fellow countrymen in Congress for a limited number of years before returning to their communities and families, so as to avoid the creation of a permanent ruling class.
This idea is at the heart of the term-limits movement, such as it is. Back in the 1990s it had a head of steam and many states passed term-limit laws that restrict the number of terms in office their governors, mayors, and other representatives can serve. But no state did this for members of Congress. In fact, it would be unconstitutional for them to do so.
But a number of members of Congress term-limited themselves, telling voters they would serve, at most, two or three terms and then leave Washington. John Boehner, for example, back in 1991, announced when he ran for Congress for the first time that he would not serve more than a total of six years. Well, here it is 20 years later and he's still here. So much for self term-limiting.
To force the issue of term limits there has been from time to time agitation to pass a constitutional amendment to limit congressional service as we limit presidential terms, constitutionally, to a lifetime total of two terms. But to pass a Constitutional amendment means that a minimum of two-thirds of both houses of Congress must vote to approve it.
So much for that idea.
But, my cousin, reminded me, there may be another way to move the process along--a process that might appeal to Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street folks alike. They both claim that the government we now have does not, for different reasons, resemble what the likes of Jefferson and Madison and Washington and Franklin intended.
He reminded me that I wrote about how this intention was reflected in their views about how to pay (or not pay in Franklin's case) representatives--initially through a modest $6.00 per diem and much later through a modest annual salary.
"Why not return to that idea?" my cousin asked.
"Good piont," I naively said.
"How much would $6.00 in 1787 be worth today? Maybe that's how much they should get paid. And they'd have to be in Washington working to receive it. Not while taking vacations--as now--or while campaigning for president."
"As a matter of fact," I said, "I looked that up the other day. It's not possible to do this precisely, but based on my research $1.00 would be worth about $40 today and thus their $6.00 per diem would be roughly equivalent now to $240. If they showed up for work on, say, 250 days a year (I'm being generous) that would total exactly $60,000. Not bad and much less than the $174,000 they get now. And then there would be more savings because we'd also eliminate their pensions."
"Again, it's not about just cutting the federal budget," my cousin said, "but more to encourage members to serve for just a few years as citizens as the founders intended."
"But Congress itself," I pointed out, "as a self-regulating body, would have to vote for this. How likely is it that they would vote to cut their salaries and elimination their benefits and perks?"
"So much for that idea," my cousin said
I said, "Let's order another drink."
"Make mine a double he said."
Some, like Newt Gingrich, who proclaim themselves to be historians and constitutional experts (but in truth know less than they assert), want to see things like the coequal component of our governmental system--the judiciary--contained and overseen by a second coequal branch--Congress. Just the other day Newt said that federal judges who rule in ways that the Congress deems to be unconstitutional should be hauled before Congress to defend themselves before being removed from the bench. Literally, he said on Sunday, by the capitol police or the federal marshals. This does not sound like the America our founders intended but rather like the oppressive European governments our ancestors escaped from where the rule of law was nonexistent or perverted in the very same ways Newt sees appropriate for us.
Talking about this the other day with a cousin, he mentioned something our founders indeed intended. Something, he said, I wrote about here on Tuesday--again, with European tyrannies in mind, they did all they could to assure that America would not have an entrenched ruling class.
Their intent was for Congress to be an ever changing, dynamic body that embraced a constant flow of new ideas, concepts and beliefs from among its ever-changing, and growing citizenry. As importantly, and dramatically detailed in their public and private writings, the founders believed that Americans should serve their fellow countrymen in Congress for a limited number of years before returning to their communities and families, so as to avoid the creation of a permanent ruling class.
This idea is at the heart of the term-limits movement, such as it is. Back in the 1990s it had a head of steam and many states passed term-limit laws that restrict the number of terms in office their governors, mayors, and other representatives can serve. But no state did this for members of Congress. In fact, it would be unconstitutional for them to do so.
But a number of members of Congress term-limited themselves, telling voters they would serve, at most, two or three terms and then leave Washington. John Boehner, for example, back in 1991, announced when he ran for Congress for the first time that he would not serve more than a total of six years. Well, here it is 20 years later and he's still here. So much for self term-limiting.
To force the issue of term limits there has been from time to time agitation to pass a constitutional amendment to limit congressional service as we limit presidential terms, constitutionally, to a lifetime total of two terms. But to pass a Constitutional amendment means that a minimum of two-thirds of both houses of Congress must vote to approve it.
So much for that idea.
But, my cousin, reminded me, there may be another way to move the process along--a process that might appeal to Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street folks alike. They both claim that the government we now have does not, for different reasons, resemble what the likes of Jefferson and Madison and Washington and Franklin intended.
He reminded me that I wrote about how this intention was reflected in their views about how to pay (or not pay in Franklin's case) representatives--initially through a modest $6.00 per diem and much later through a modest annual salary.
"Why not return to that idea?" my cousin asked.
"Good piont," I naively said.
"How much would $6.00 in 1787 be worth today? Maybe that's how much they should get paid. And they'd have to be in Washington working to receive it. Not while taking vacations--as now--or while campaigning for president."
"As a matter of fact," I said, "I looked that up the other day. It's not possible to do this precisely, but based on my research $1.00 would be worth about $40 today and thus their $6.00 per diem would be roughly equivalent now to $240. If they showed up for work on, say, 250 days a year (I'm being generous) that would total exactly $60,000. Not bad and much less than the $174,000 they get now. And then there would be more savings because we'd also eliminate their pensions."
"Again, it's not about just cutting the federal budget," my cousin said, "but more to encourage members to serve for just a few years as citizens as the founders intended."
"But Congress itself," I pointed out, "as a self-regulating body, would have to vote for this. How likely is it that they would vote to cut their salaries and elimination their benefits and perks?"
"So much for that idea," my cousin said
I said, "Let's order another drink."
"Make mine a double he said."
posted by Steven Zwerling at
4:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home