The Feb. 24 “Local View” column in the News Tribune, headlined, “Obstructionists are allowed to thwart the majority will,” displayed both a lack of historical knowledge of our Constitution’s origins and a dangerous and revolutionary ideology that would threaten the very rights the writer seemingly was defending. The commentary asserted that the current Senate majority, the creature of only our most recent election, does not reflect the will of the majority of American voters. The writer wrote only of numbers; but, of course, votes are cast by states, and so one might rejoin that indeed the current majority does represent the Constitutional majority, as established by that document and all subsequent laws. One might also wonder if the Supreme Court’s ability to rule on the law would be set aside by this worship of the transitory will of a raw majority. Where would protection for rights then reside? It was precisely this lack of understanding that seemed to be behind the commentary’s views. It was asserted that the Constitution’s formulas are “undemocratic” because the Constitution “gives” two senators to each state “regardless of population.” To which I reply, just so! Without the compromise developed by Luther Martin of Maryland that gave population control of one house of the legislature and equal representation of the states which created the constitution in the other house, the document certainly never would have been ratified. Further, each state’s absolute right to equal representation specifically was called out in guaranteeing that no state can be denied its equal voice without its consent. Ratification of the Constitution was a narrow thing, with Rhode Island and North Carolina holding out, even after the inauguration of President George Washington. The framers feared establishing too powerful a central government and also distrusted the hasty judgments of a passing majority. And in order to further ensure deliberation, only one-third of the Senate would be elected at one time, providing continuity and the opportunity for dispassionate debate. State boundaries are not “arbitrary,” as the Feb. 24 column stated; they are not mere counties or constructs of the government. And the column’s contemptuous dismissal of states that “may encompass little more than cows and prairie dogs” displayed the very disregard for minority rights that the Constitution was written to guarantee, especially when buttressed by the Bill of Rights. The inability of the Congress to pass a budget or to deal with other pressing issues was cited in the column as a consequence of these “undemocratic” Constitutional strictures. But the real reason is the extreme polarization of views in this country, resulting from both economic and cultural forces that sadly have left little of the once-powerful sense of community and general good that good governance requires. The Feb. 24 column denigrated the work of the framers as a “horse-and-buggy artifact of a forgotten age, undemocratic and wholly unsuited to an increasingly urbanized and technological society.” It is perhaps gratuitous to note after such elitist remarks that it is this Constitution that has seen this nation through a Civil War, a Great Depression and two World Wars. The increasing democracy the Feb. 24 column seemed to call for already has been realized in large part through the expansion of the franchise, the popular election of the Senate, and the gradual recognition of various rights unforeseen by the founders but realized through the evolution of the very document so reviled. The tyranny of a passing raw majority can never be trusted to protect and ensure individual rights; it was fortunate that the truly revolutionary view the column represented can almost surely never come to pass. J. Craig Scherf of Duluth has a minor in history from the University of Minnesota and researches and writes regularly for the publications of historical societies. With extensive knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, he focuses much of his writing on the early American republic, including Southern and Plains states. He is secretary of the Friends of the Superior Public Library.
The Feb. 24 “Local View” column in the News Tribune, headlined, “Obstructionists are allowed to thwart the majority will,” displayed both a lack of historical knowledge of our Constitution’s origins and a dangerous and revolutionary ideology that would threaten the very rights the writer seemingly was defending.The commentary asserted that the current Senate majority, the creature of only our most recent election, does not reflect the will of the majority of American voters. The writer wrote only of numbers; but, of course, votes are cast by states, and so one might rejoin that indeed the current majority does represent the Constitutional majority, as established by that document and all subsequent laws. One might also wonder if the Supreme Court’s ability to rule on the law would be set aside by this worship of the transitory will of a raw majority. Where would protection for rights then reside?It was precisely this lack of understanding that seemed to be behind the commentary’s views. It was asserted that the Constitution’s formulas are “undemocratic” because the Constitution “gives” two senators to each state “regardless of population.” To which I reply, just so! Without the compromise developed by Luther Martin of Maryland that gave population control of one house of the legislature and equal representation of the states which created the constitution in the other house, the document certainly never would have been ratified. Further, each state’s absolute right to equal representation specifically was called out in guaranteeing that no state can be denied its equal voice without its consent.Ratification of the Constitution was a narrow thing, with Rhode Island and North Carolina holding out, even after the inauguration of President George Washington. The framers feared establishing too powerful a central government and also distrusted the hasty judgments of a passing majority. And in order to further ensure deliberation, only one-third of the Senate would be elected at one time, providing continuity and the opportunity for dispassionate debate.State boundaries are not “arbitrary,” as the Feb. 24 column stated; they are not mere counties or constructs of the government. And the column’s contemptuous dismissal of states that “may encompass little more than cows and prairie dogs” displayed the very disregard for minority rights that the Constitution was written to guarantee, especially when buttressed by the Bill of Rights.The inability of the Congress to pass a budget or to deal with other pressing issues was cited in the column as a consequence of these “undemocratic” Constitutional strictures. But the real reason is the extreme polarization of views in this country, resulting from both economic and cultural forces that sadly have left little of the once-powerful sense of community and general good that good governance requires.The Feb. 24 column denigrated the work of the framers as a “horse-and-buggy artifact of a forgotten age, undemocratic and wholly unsuited to an increasingly urbanized and technological society.”It is perhaps gratuitous to note after such elitist remarks that it is this Constitution that has seen this nation through a Civil War, a Great Depression and two World Wars. The increasing democracy the Feb. 24 column seemed to call for already has been realized in large part through the expansion of the franchise, the popular election of the Senate, and the gradual recognition of various rights unforeseen by the founders but realized through the evolution of the very document so reviled. The tyranny of a passing raw majority can never be trusted to protect and ensure individual rights; it was fortunate that the truly revolutionary view the column represented can almost surely never come to pass.J. Craig Scherf of Duluth has a minor in history from the University of Minnesota and researches and writes regularly for the publications of historical societies. With extensive knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, he focuses much of his writing on the early American republic, including Southern and Plains states. He is secretary of the Friends of the Superior Public Library.
SUBSCRIBE NOW!
