The Law of Unintended Consequences and the Current Congress. 

 

This law is always in force and never goes away, it is the dividing line between those who are brilliant in their work and those who are capable.  The brilliance of mind that was evident in the founding fathers came from their intelligence, preparation and a willingness to seek God’s help.    He acknowledged this in D&C 101: 80

 

  80 And for this purpose have I established the aConstitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the bshedding of blood.

 

One example of unintended consequences can be derived from the Federalist Papers, No. 63, Madison.   Madison is talking about the  principle of representation and the historical jealousies and power struggle between the various Senates and Houses of Representatives in government throughout history.  He considered representation as one of the key elements of the American Constitution that made us different from previous attempts and one that would provide automatic error correcting as time went on.  Unfortunately we changed things.

 

We changed the constitution to provide for the popular election of Senators rather than by State appointment as was originally envisioned.  This altered the potential balance of power between the states, people and federal government.  Here is the intent of the founders as reasoned by Madison.

 

“….

The difference most relied on, between the American and other republics, consists in the principle of representation; which is the pivot on which the former move, and which is supposed to have been unknown to the latter, or at least to the ancient part of them. … Without entering into a disquisition which here would be misplaced, I will refer to a few known facts, in support of what I advance.

…

From these facts, to which many others might be added, it is clear that the principle of representation was neither unknown to the ancients nor wholly overlooked in their political constitutions. The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies IN THE TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE PEOPLE, IN THEIR COLLECTIVE CAPACITY, from any share in the LATTER, and not in the TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE from the administration of the FORMER. The distinction, however, thus qualified, must be admitted to leave a most advantageous superiority in favor of the United States.   …

In answer to all these arguments, suggested by reason, illustrated by examples, and enforced by our own experience, the jealous adversary of the Constitution will probably content himself with repeating, that a senate appointed not immediately by the people, and for the term of six years, must gradually acquire a dangerous pre-eminence in the government, and finally transform it into a tyrannical aristocracy.

…

Before such a revolution can be effected, the Senate, it is to be observed, must in the first place corrupt itself; must next corrupt the State legislatures; must then corrupt the House of Representatives; and must finally corrupt the people at large. It is evident that the Senate must be first corrupted before it can attempt an establishment of tyranny. Without corrupting the State legislatures, it cannot prosecute the attempt, because the periodical change of members would otherwise regenerate the whole body. Without exerting the means of corruption with equal success on the House of Representatives, the opposition of that coequal branch of the government would inevitably defeat the attempt; and without corrupting the people themselves, a succession of new representatives would speedily restore all things to their pristine order. Is there any man who can seriously persuade himself that the proposed Senate can, by any possible means within the compass of human address, arrive at the object of a lawless ambition, through all these obstructions?

..

..

As far as antiquity can instruct us on this subject, its examples support the reasoning which we have employed. In Sparta, the Ephori, the annual representatives of the people, were found an overmatch for the senate for life, continually gained on its authority and finally drew all power into their own hands. The Tribunes of Rome, who were the representatives of the people, prevailed, it is well known, in almost every contest with the senate for life, and in the end gained the most complete triumph over it. The fact is the more remarkable, as unanimity was required in every act of the Tribunes, even after their number was augmented to ten. It proves the irresistible force possessed by that branch of a free government, which has the people on its side. To these examples might be added that of Carthage, whose senate, according to the testimony of Polybius, instead of drawing all power into its vortex, had, at the commencement of the second Punic War, lost almost the whole of its original portion.

Besides the conclusive evidence resulting from this assemblage of facts, that the federal Senate will never be able to transform itself, by gradual usurpations, into an independent and aristocratic body, we are warranted in believing, that if such a revolution should ever happen from causes which the foresight of man cannot guard against, the House of Representatives, with the people on their side, will at all times be able to bring back the Constitution to its primitive form and principles. Against the force of the immediate representatives of the people, nothing will be able to maintain even the constitutional authority of the Senate, but such a display of enlightened policy, and attachment to the public good, as will divide with that branch of the legislature the affections and support of the entire body of the people themselves.” (End of Madison’s paper)

 

This is extremely clear thinking on several concepts:

1.      The Senate is representing each State by appointment.  Its interest is the State’s interest.

2.      The House of Representatives represents the people by popular election.

3.      The House of Representatives has a duty to reign in the actions of the Senate

4.      Corruption of the Senate aristocracy has occurred historically and to combat that problem you have the House representing the people with the responsibility named in item 3.

5.      The exception this time was that this would be a self-correcting process with two groups involved. (the people and the states)

6.      History has shown that the group with the people on its side is an irresistible force.

7.      Madison recognized that the primitive form and principles of the Constitution are sufficient to control the nature of man, which is the root issue.

 

However, as of Amendment 17 passed in 1913 we no longer have a body representing the States interests.  The biggest reason for passage of this amendment was due to corruption on the part of individual Senators and their unrepentant attitude, which enraged the public.  The solution at the time seemed to be changing Senator’s appointment to one of popular election rather than keeping their appointment via the state legislature.  The states could have cleaned out the bad individuals and then replaced them with good, honorable men of integrity, they did not.  The unintended result is showing up today in the makeup and actions of the Senate. 

 

We now have a Senate that is within a hairs breadth of a one party overwhelming majority and that is an extension of the president and his policies.  The self-correcting process that Madison and others envisioned has been nullified as both the House and Senate are now reflections of the people or pander to the largest voting block. 

 

In conclusion, the 17th Amendment has an unintended consequence of derailing the self-correcting process to address corruption in the Senate and seizing of the government by a single party or group.  The lopsided influence we see today is a direct unintended result of this change.  The danger is illustrated in the examples cited by Madison; it is hard to change this direction against the tide of public opinion.

 

It is more difficult now to change the 17th Amendment, not impossible, but this should give you a firm knowledge of why there is little incentive on the part of the legislative branch to correct the problem.  Both houses are now basically the same in their interests and goals, we have lost a leg of the stool that keeps the government steady.  This is an unintended consequence of changing an inspired Constitution with the limited sight of man.

 

We see then the current congress, dominated by one party, is going to be extremely difficult to change.  The absolute need, shown historically, illustrated by Madison, is that we have to do an outstanding job of educating the public and then elect people who will return the constitution to its pristine form.  The need is for a major effort to educate the people on the why’s and foundations of the constitution.  Unless we do that we lose it.

 

RKern