Even more surprising than the public not focusing on this issue is that Congress has not forcefully pushed back on this practice. Our political system is set up with a system of checks and balances between the branches as specified in the Constitution. The Czars are comandeering authority to exercise control over the public without having to answer to anyone but the President. Congress, as the people’s representatives, is not exercising any authority to appoint or confirm the Czars nor demand any accountability from them. How do they think this is going to turn out for them in the future as this created platform of consolidating power gets entrenched and ever more powerful? The authority of the Czars will likely start off in a restrained manner, and as time goes by and acceptance becomes the norm, they will slowly ratchet up their influence to the delight of an ascendant President and the chagrin of an undermined Congress and population. This is the nature of a created power base, once installed, it constantly evolves by a steady accretion of power over time. It makes you wonder why Congress would continue to accept what will obviously become a usurpation of their own powers, but so far they are doing exactly that.

What is it exactly that justifies the creation of this Czar network that exists outside of the Constitution and answers to only one person? Is the intention to circumvent the people and their representatives in an attempt to amass political dominance to create more of an autocracy? Can we not assume that regardless of the justification presented it will lead to something that will be an apparatus of power, and how positive could that be for us since it operates outside our normal political system? We need to keep in mind that any power it assumes must either come from another branch of Government or directly from the people, so which of these should be screaming the loudest right now? Is this the first glimpse of a much larger plan yet to be revealed that will forever change our governmental landscape and will not be wholly comprehended for years to come?

A very good example of how expansive the Commerce Clause became is best provided by a case known as Wickard v. Filburn that was decided by the Supreme Court in 1942. Filburn was a farmer who was fined by the Government because he harvested more winter wheat on his property than the amount that was approved by the Agricultural Adjustment Act. He was limited to eleven acres, but he harvested an additional twelve acres that he was going to use for personal consumption only, and by doing so he incurred a fine that he refused to pay. The case made it to the Supreme Court and they unanimously ruled against Filburn because any wheat that he personally consumed would not then be purchased on the open market thus indirectly affecting interstate commerce. Plus, he may be lured into selling some of his wheat to the market if the price were to increase which was the objective of the Government at the time using regulation. This being even remotely related to the Commerce Clause was a stretch at best, but it did not deter the Government from pursuing it and prevailing with the help of the Supreme Court. This illustrates how anything you can buy, sell, touch, use, or consume can now be regulated based on a “perceived” linkage to commerce, and this became the primary mechanism by which the Federal Government has expanded its power through time.

Using this concept you can easily see this same practice being used with health care as the tool against us citizens to further erode our freedoms and liberties. Upon legislating universal health care and having the Government as the administrator it is easy to foresee them dictating the decisions concerning our health. Regardless of the form that any new health care plan takes, the Government’s involvement will be profound right from the beginning and likely increase with time. They will exercise full authority to select your doctors and hospitals as well as the treatments you receive as each of these providers and procedures will be fully regulated by the Government, maybe even by another appointed Czar that is answerable to none of us or our representatives. Health care will be rationed regardless of the promises made, there will be long waits as well as treatments withheld because any one specific case may not be deemed worthy of the expense. Life and death judgments will now be decided by someone other than the person affected or their family. These are the apparent things that can be envisioned because they are readily observable around the world, but an equally unpleasant thought comes from the combination of the Government inevitably having the customary monetary shortfalls mixed with their nonstop expansionism. In the interest of saving money on health care, they will start dictating and/or regulating your everyday behaviors by simply relating them to health care in some manner, however indirect, much like they did with commerce. They may become very interested in your habits such as smoking, alcohol usage, soda consumption, exercise habits, the foods you eat and how often etc. They may want to know what hobbies you enjoy such as skydiving, racing cars, flying airplanes, or spending time on a mountain snow skiing. What about work related activities like how much time do you drive, the dangers in your daily activities, your choice of job and its hazards. You can take this line of thinking through your day from sunup to sundown and everything you do in between and relate it to health care in some way, therefore they will have the authority to regulate and control our lives even more than they already do. The precedence for this behavior has already been long established and continues to this day. It is not far-fetched at all to assume they will exploit the health care system for their benefit just like they did with the Commerce Clause, it will just be the new means to their expansionary end.

It seems to be a constant that the Government always wants to increase their reach into our lives, for it has been an endless march since the Progressive era. It is a zero-sum game and any power they attain must be relinquished by the individual citizens or the state, and this transpires slowly over time. Universal health care may be viewed as a panacea by many in our society, but knowing our Government’s inclination and history, it will likely prove to be another failed program dragging our nation further into the fiscal abyss and eroding our freedoms and liberties in the process.

The Constitution of the United States provided for the U.S. Senate to be comprised of two Senators appointed from each state by their respective Legislatures. The 17th Amendment changed that provision from being appointed by the Legislatures to being elected by popular vote. This is a very important change because it shifted the accountability of those Senators away from the state governing bodies to the populace as a whole. It made the Senate beholden to the individual voters exactly the same as the House of Representatives, thus making the function redundant with that of the House and reducing its effectiveness. The Founders specifically provided for the states to have this direct voice in the Federal Government as part of the checks and balances integrated throughout the governmental system as set forth in the Constitution. It is just as important for the States to have direct representation much in the same way as individuals possess, but the 17th Amendment rescinded that notion.

It is understandable for the position to be taken that all of our Government should be answerable to “We the people.” In effect this is still the case without the 17th Amendment because each state Legislature is voted by popular ballot thus indirectly it still comes down to the individual citizens. What has been lost by the states and the individuals is a tool of consolidation to advance a strong, unified and cohesive message on the national level. Right now, any number of individuals can demonstrate, collect signatures, or use any other form of protest to garner attention in the national political process, and it is usually met with indifference even with thousands of participants attempting to send a message. However, if a state Legislature pushes a position on behalf of its residents, it becomes much more forceful being that they are speaking on behalf of their whole state with voting power in the Senate. Individual protesting is fine, but its message is often too diluted to get the attention needed, but states consolidate that message and push with more weight for the changes desired by their citizens. A system where Senators are accountable to everybody in the populace usually means they are accountable to nobody, reduce that down to the Legislature only and their accountability gets focused. With the system as originally implemented, the citizens would have two avenues for effecting change on the Federal level; they could work through their U.S. Representatives directly and through their respective state Legislatures in directing their U.S. Senators to vote for what is beneficial to the state.

The ratification of the 17th Amendment certainly looks like a monumental mistake for the state and its individual citizens by weakening both. There is potential legislation currently circulating around Washington D.C. that is contrary to the best interests of our citizens and future generations. It makes you wonder how much of that legislation would be rejected or reworked if the state Legislatures had a strong apparatus of control as originally provided. This would also include any legislation recently voted and passed that will prove harmful to our nation. All laws would have to go through a chamber that is beholden to the individuals as well as a chamber that is beholden to the state Legislatures on behalf of the residents within their respective states, so all legislation would have to serve the individuals and the states equally. Having the original structure modified has created an imbalance of power between the states and the Federal Government which is resulting in the arrogance toward the rights of states and its citizens. This is a big issue right now on the national front and promises to become bigger if the current trend continues. The Federal Government will attempt to expand and control more aspects of our lives and we have lost a very important mechanism for combating it by pushing back with state powers that were originally devised as a check on Federal indiscretions. States would be more effective in opposing Federal expansionism if they would band together to rescind the 17th Amendment and not just reassert their 10th Amendment rights. Getting back to the original intent of the Constitution is an action that would certainly bring balance back to the relationship between the states and the Federal Government while paying respects to our Founders’ original vision.

A place where you are permitted to be successful provided you share an ever-increasing amount of that success with the masses of people that failed to achieve or have chosen to not even try.

A nation of citizens clutching to nothing more than “hope” that they will not be crushed by the massive debt amassed by the few to acquire and maintain political power at the expense of many.

A country perceived with such wealth that its citizens commonly choose to remain uninformed and uninvolved yet they still expect the entitlement of that wealth.

An unconcerned populace expecting a prosperous future while blatantly disregarding all perils since they have never proved ruinous before. Assurance is bestowed by the impression that government cares about its citizens more than itself.

Let the bellowing begin. The arguments presented would focus on the view that it would be unjust that a citizen’s vote would not count. On the contrary, it seems more unjust that they have a voice in the decisions of operating a Government that they are not paying to support. That would be like expecting to vote on resolutions in a corporation in which you are not a shareholder. Why should a non-taxpaying citizen have a voice on who is elected and makes decisions such as how much tax everyone else should pay? It makes absolutely no sense. If “taxation without representation” is not acceptable, why then would “representation without taxation” be any more acceptable? This is not to suggest people will be living in a district that is unrepresented, just that they will not help decide who is representing it without paying taxes.

Another argument would be that the taxpayers would be tyrannical to the non-paying citizens and not care about their wellbeing. There is no reason to believe this would happen, again, I can refer to the corporate model. Many people can complain that corporations have been abusive, and I will agree that there are abuses as in everything in life. However, a vast amount of corporations across our country act as good citizens, and these companies are not making negative headlines that seem to be the norm. These corporations provide products and services, jobs, pay taxes, and donate generously to charitable causes on a regular basis. They realize there is an expectation for them to act as a responsible citizen in the society in which they reside by taking constructive measures to improve it, not use it as a platform of oppression.

The Federal Government will never make responsible and prudent decisions for the country as long as they continue to manage it for the benefit of a dependent class of people they are purposely creating. The more they can make the populace dependent on them, the more likely they will continue to be reelected to ensure the benefits will continue. By changing to a weighted vote as put forth, the Government will then be accountable to the ones paying the bills and not the ones getting paid. It is at that point the healing will begin with all the issues confronting our nation. Once under the scrutiny of the citizens paying for their existence, the decisions start taking on a new perspective, one that is focused on discipline and responsibility.

Members of our Government will have to start earning their right to be an elected official based on performance and not on buying votes from the dependent class. Also, this will have the added benefit of giving incentive for the non-paying citizens to begin paying taxes so they can have a voice too. Suddenly, something strange might begin happening, we may end up with a more fiscally responsible Government that is collecting more taxes to boot. The danger lies in not taking this action. Continuing to focus on the dependent class to secure votes will certainly drive our country toward bankruptcy that is being witnessed right now.