Does Anyone Know How to Govern?

With all that we have seen occur at the national level over the last, let’s say “50 years,” it became obvious to me that the nation is not being governed by Foundational Principles. I came to this conclusion a long time ago but could not put my finger on it other then what I’ve discussed in my presentation “From Covenant to the Present Constitution (The Tale of Two Constitutions).” Yet that is a complex answer to what I think many are looking for in a simple rational.
With how the national government is acting one has to wonder if anyone knows how to govern? My conclusion is ‘NO’ because they are not functioning as intended under Federalism. As I mention next, we have been functioning as a national constitutional fascist system since 1913. That sounds harsh but, when you look at the discussions of the Federalists and Anti-federalists in comparison to early 20th Century amendments and institutionalization of government. Well, the result is what the Anti-federalist predicted in No. 3, 7 and 9.
Ok, so I’m going to attempt to keep this simple and not the 20,000 words that I could write on this topic. In Particular I’m going to let Madison and several of the other Founders give the details with my, hopefully, slight interjection. Let’s just for a moment look at the turn of events after the Civil War amendment debacle. I’m not going to go retroactive to that point but I will take us back just over 100 years and what I’ve been discussing on my radio program regarding Edward House and his pseudo auto-biography “Philip Dru: Administrator.”
The reality is that the power elite have been not only influencing national elections as delineated in “Philip Dru” but in fact they have taken Congress such that career bureaucrats run everything in the national government system. Now you may have clearly noticed that I did not say the ‘federal’ government system. You see that is what Madison addresses in Federalist No. 39 and which both political parties are refusing to acknowledge and function under. What’s that you ask?
The Constitutional fact and reality is that we are a federation or federal system with the operatives to be functioning from the character of persons in a republic. Madison puts things in order this way from No. 39: “The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible.” What this not just implies but is explicit with is that: WE the People are to expect a republican form first above all. Gee, sadly, we have too many that expect a democracy which is contrary to Foundational intent.
In the next paragraph Madison comments on those taking political position over principles. He comments on several nations that say they are republics but it is questionable as to what they are in reality. He concludes that the fundamental definition of a republic is rendered to: “If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. It is SUFFICIENT for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified; otherwise every government in the United States, as well as every other popular government that has been or can be well organized or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character. According to the constitution of every State in the Union, some or other of the officers of government are appointed indirectly only by the people. According to most of them, the chief magistrate himself is so appointed. And according to one, this mode of appointment is extended to one of the co-ordinate branches of the legislature. According to all the constitutions, also, the tenure of the highest offices is extended to a definite period, and in many instances, both within the legislative and executive departments, to a period of years. According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behavior.”
Madison gets to the details of how each State establishes its form of republicanism and the blend of the various States into the general Constitution as submitted. The Anti-federalists rightly argued that at some point in time the Constitution would form a fully consolidated government. Interesting how Madison argues otherwise in No. 39: “”But it was not sufficient,” say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, “for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States.” And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken? The handle which has been made of this objection requires that it should be examined with some precision.
Without inquiring into the accuracy of the distinction on which the objection is founded, it will be necessary to a just estimate of its force, first, to ascertain the real character of the government in question; secondly, to inquire how far the convention were authorized to propose such a government; and thirdly, how far the duty they owed to their country could supply any defect of regular authority.
First. In order to ascertain the real character of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established; to the sources from which its ordinary powers are to be drawn; to the operation of those powers; to the extent of them; and to the authority by which future changes in the government are to be introduced.
On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.”
I see that I’m getting long winded here. Yet the Founders wrote at least twice as long. I know, no excuse on my part. So let me sum this up.
Madison goes on to talk about a National government that operates over the people because in the House, the people elect the representatives so it is a National not Federal government.   Now where everything got messed up in 1913 that makes our present government 100% National is the 17th Amendment. Why? It is that the Federal component was suppose to remain in the Senate. Madison said: “The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is FEDERAL, not NATIONAL.” So now, the Senate is elected by the people thereby making US that pseudo democracy and destroying the balance that the Founders intended. Hence we have ‘the Patriot Act’ and ‘National Health Care – obama/congress Care.’
Oh, and the argument of the Electoral College, That was intended to balance our idea of Federal and National according to Madison: “The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many FEDERAL as NATIONAL features.”
The bottom line is that with the Senate now broken, according to Founders Intent, the full operation of the national government does not have any Federal function unless it is by the grace of the Congress in conjunction with the President. Madison summarizes a properly operating Constitutional government as: “The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.”
Yet again, with the Senate elected directly by the people… Well all bets are off as to what we have and how then the despotism and tyranny that the Anti-federalists wrote of can now be upon us even more.
So maybe those in the swamp of Washington DC do know how to govern! They are doing so according to the new principles of a changed Constitution that destroyed Federalism with the 17th Amendment and… Yes, the treaties that I talk about in “From Covenant to the Present Constitution (The Tale of Two Constitutions).” Hmmm … Maybe that isn’t so difficult to understand after all. Congress is governing according to the Present Constitution that they have taken their oath to uphold and defend.