"[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and and which shall establish by law: but the Congress may by law vest appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments." ~ The Constitution of the United States; Article II, Section 2, Clause 2
If you have any doubt about the Founding Father's intention concerning the role of the the States in our Federal government, ask yourself why the Constitution specifically spells out that the President must have the "advice and consent" of the Senate for making treaties, appointing ambassadors and the other issues spelled out in Article II...and not the House.
As you're considering this, remember that the Senate, as originally designed...before the Seventeenth Amendment...was appointed by the legislators of the States. They were to act "in the quality of ambassadors of the states," according to Massachusetts ratifying convention member,
Fisher Ames. The reason for this is that the country was designed not as a monolithic nation, but as a federation of sovereign States...thus the term United States, and the term Federal government. Any treaties, ambassadors, Supreme Court judges, etc., directly affects and represents these sovereign states. The State governments, therefore, were to have a direct input to these issues through their ambassadors to the central government...THEIR Senators.
Additionally, according to Article II, Section 1, "Each State shall appoint, in such a manner as the legislature thereof may direct, an number of electors" to choose the President of the United States. This is the so-called
Electoral College. As James Madison explains in Federalist 39, "The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and co-equal societies; partly as unequal as unequal members of the same society."
So, the States were to elect the President, through the electoral process, and provide advice and consent, through their "Ambassador/Senators" to any treaties and most appointments that the President makes. The Senators were to provide a check on the power of the federal executive and "afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights."
Here is more from Fisher Ames:
 |
| Fisher Ames |
"The state governments are essential parts of the system.... The senators represent the sovereignty of the states; in the other house, individuals are represented.... They are in the quality of ambassadors of the states, and it will not be denied that some permanency in their office is necessary to a discharge of their duty. Now, if they were chosen yearly, how could they perform their trust? If they would be brought by that means more immediately under the influence of the people, then they will represent the state legislatures less, and become the representatives of individuals. This belongs to the other house. The absurdity of this, and its repugnancy to the federal principles of the Constitution, will appear more fully, by supposing that they are to be chosen by the people at large. If there is any force in the objection to this article, this would be proper. But whom, in that case, would they represent? Not the legislatures of the states, but the people. This would totally obliterate the federal features of the Constitution. What would become of the state governments, and on whom would devolve the duty of defending them against the encroachments of the federal government? A consolidation of the states would ensue, which, it is conceded, would subvert the new Constitution, and against which this very article, so much condemned, is our best security. Too much provision cannot be made against a consolidation. The state governments represent the wishes, and feelings, and local interests, of the people. They are the safeguard and ornament of the Constitution; they will protract the period of our liberties; they will afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights."
The Federal government has greatly overstepped it's constitutional bounds. The office of the President has almost become the royal dictatorship that the founders sought to avoid. The States must, if our republic is to survive, stand up and re-establish their role as a check on the power of the Federal government.
Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment!
