In February of 1776 Thomas Paine wrote "Common Sense". He described the component parts of the English constitution as the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new republican materials. "First.-The remains of monarchial tyranny in the person of the King. Secondly.-The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the peers (House of Lords). Thirdly.-The new republican materials in the persons of the commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England".
Obviously the first two components are hereditary and independent of the people and in a constitutional sense contribute nothing toward the freedom of the state. Payne also believed that saying the constitution of England is a union of the three powers reciprocally checking each other was a farce. The words either had no meaning or they were flat contradictions.
He also said " some have explained the English constitution by saying the King is one, the people another; the peers (House of Lords) are a house in behalf of the King; the House of Commons in behalf of the people; but this had the distinction of a house divided against itself".
Our own Constitution and system of government was loosely based on the English constitution but the founders exercised the wisdom and judgement to strengthen the component parts of our system creating what they thought would be a checks and balances system. Even when faced with a strong movement to name George Washington as a King, wiser heads, including George himself, prevailed and created a President elected by the people, well not directly by the people but by a group of electors representing the people. We replaced the House of Lords with our Senate composed of two senators from each state. Senators were originally appointed by the various state legislatures but an amendment to the Constitution set up a term of six years and direct election by the people. The English House of Commons became our House of Representatives with members elected every two years by the people. The number of representatives for each state was to be determined by population.
We would elect a President, or at least the electors who would choose a President; every four years; a Senator every six, but these elections would be held so only one third of the Senate would be up every two years; Congressmen would be elected every two years.
By structuring the system in this way we would maximize the concept of government "of the people, by the people, and for the people the founders envisioned. Congressmen would have to adhere closely to the wishes of the people since they would be subject to recall every two years. Senators, with their six year terms, would be free to debate issues on the merits and not as vulnerable to the immediate whims of the people. The powers given to the legislative bodies would serve to keep an overly ambitious President in check. Since our system of government would not be based on a monarchy or aristocracy elected office would be attained not by heredity or family connection but on the basis of merit and the support of the people.
Perhaps the founders simply forgot about the the potential growth in strength of political parties even though they were warned by Thomas Jefferson. They certainly did not foresee the tremendous growth of government that would ultimately place almost unlimited power and wealth into the hands of those officials originally elected to serve the needs and wishes of the people who voted for them.
Even though we do not have an actual monarchy or aristocracy, a case could be made that we have come very close to the original English style of government. Of course denials would echo through the halls of government and much of the established media. Yet the concept of recalling a congressman every two years has completely disappeared for the most part. The incredible cost to run and the power of the party and the office itself has virtually excluded the defeat of an incumbent of either party. Not only is the office holder almost invulnerable, but he or she will decide who the party will support as a replacement when it is time to move on, frequently this is a sibling or trusted aid. The two major political parties, and their specific constituents, have become so powerful they determine which candidates we will choose between. More and more this has become the choice of the lesser of two evils.
We, you and I, have allowed a degree of arrogance to develop in our elected representatives, at all levels, that is beyond comprehension. Even if we forget the enormous amount of wealth these people accumulate during their tenures in office; or the trips all over the world for them and their families at taxpayer expense; the lavish perks available to them on the two or three day workweek they must endure, we must not continue to ignore the almost vulgar vanity of these people. You and I have allowed them to discount our part in this system. In fact it seems many feel our support is not important since they have created enough "special interest voters" to keep them in office as long as they continue to give these groups what they want. As insurance they have divided up the country in such a way the current officeholder, of either party, is rarely defeated. We have seen this arrogance first hand lately in tax cheating, outright trading political favor for support, personal infidelity, and actions and statements in total contradiction of popular wishes.
Can we change it back toward what the founders intended? Perhaps. The more important question might be, do we want to change it?
One can only wonder what old Tom Paine would write about our system today.
