Opinion
By Matthew Griffiths, 1-12-25
This will be a multi-part series discussing some fundamental changes that need to occur in this country if we are to have any lasting change.
Love It or List It was a home improvement reality TV show that aired on HGTV starting in 2008. In case you haven’t seen the show, it was about families that felt they had outgrown their current homes. They would hire a designer to renovate the house to meet their needs, while a realtor would show them houses that meet their current needs. The show would end with the family deciding if they will stay in the current house or list it and look for a new house. One of the most dramatic parts of the show was that the renovation would often uncover parts of the house that weren’t up to code. Bringing the house up to code would limit the amount of renovations that could be done unless the family had more money to spend.
Our country needs some renovations, and many hope that President Trump is the man to get them done. However, if you listen to most pundits and politicians, they speak of superficial solutions. Most of these changes can be expressed in pithy slogans: secure the border, deport them all, America first, drill baby drill, and no men in girls’ sports. While these changes are popular, they will not fix the fundamental problems that face this country. The fundamental changes can be expressed as pithy slogans, but some Americans may not understand what they mean. Abolish the 17th Amendment. Re-establish the commerce clause. Only what is necessary and proper. Break the unions. Term limits now. None of these changes would be easy, but they are all important.
In case you are unfamiliar with the amendments to the Constitution, the 17th Amendment changed how senators are selected. Before this amendment, senators were appointed by the state’s legislature. The amendment changed the appointment to popular election. This removed the state’s representative from the federal government. This was a major step in moving from a constitutional republic to the mob rule of democracy. It was also the first step in making the 10th all but meaningless in American life.
Quick history lesson: the founders of this country had a revolutionary idea that rights should be retained at the lowest level. The first nine amendments that make up the Bill of Rights protect the rights of the individual, and the tenth amendment was to protect the states’ rights, being that they were the next lower level of responsibility. The Federal Government was meant to be limited to the enumerated powers specifically listed in the Constitution. One can only imagine how the framers of the Constitution would be dismayed by our current level of federal control.
One of the barriers to the federal government usurping powers that were not intended for Washington was the election of the senators by the state legislatures. This was intended to ensure that the senators would be loyal to their state above all things. They were the direct voice of their state’s leadership at the federal level. The only current example today would be the ambassador to the United Nations. Where the only influence on their vote is what the President wants.
Currently, senators are influenced by the will of the party and its donors, many of whom may not even live in the state being represented. Recent senate elections in Texas and Georgia have been heavily influenced by out-of-state donors. Raphael Warnock, GA (D) raised 2 dollars from donors outside of GA for every dollar from the citizens of Georgia. Now, can anyone say with a straight face that the senator is concerned with how issues will affect Georgia as opposed to how they will impact his donors in New York and California? It is much easier to fund a single out-of-state senate race as opposed to trying to fund enough state legislature races to ensure a majority.
Currently, states’ rights are the rights that the federal government allows them to have. This is one of the reasons the states are so upset when the party they oppose is in power in Washington. Of course, those in the red states are about to celebrate once the new federal government is sworn in, but we need to be mature and look at the term impact of our desires. Instead of applauding executive orders, that may only last for four years before they are overturned by the next President, we should be looking for ways to diminish federal power. The more power the states have to make decisions independent of the federal government, the more choice the individual will have.
The best example of this would be the recent ballot measure four here in Florida. The reason for this amendment proposal was that the Supreme Court had moved power to regulate abortions from the federal level to the state level. Many states have voted on similar amendments since the Supreme Court’s ruling, some have passed, and some have failed. In Florida, it failed. This gave the voters in Florida the chance to decide at the ballot box. However, the supporters of the amendment have a second chance to vote. This is often called the U-Haul vote. If this issue is that important to you, you can move to a state that more closely supports your view. However, if decisions are made at the federal level, then your only recourse would be to leave the country.
It is less likely that this will happen and have any lasting impact if the states do not have a direct representative in the federal government. We will need the judiciary to reverse several key decisions that help enshrine bad policy as the law of the land. Once this happens, we will need a federal legislature that will not try to rewrite the bad laws with new wording or, more importantly, won’t pack the court to undo the decision. Hopefully, a senate loyal to their states would band together to protect the newly rediscovered states’ rights.
Local resident Matthew Griffiths describes himself as “a bond servant of Christ.”
The views expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Citizens Journal Florida
