6 Print * Email 0 Archive

About Nancy Salvato Nancy Salvato has worked in the field of education since 1986, her experience spanning grades P-12 as a classroom teacher and as a clinical instructor at the postsecondary level. She is an experienced higher education administrator with demonstrated proficiency in accreditation and licensure, governmental relations, operations, curriculum and instruction, assessment, utilizing a student information system (SIS) and a learning management system (LMS). She received her undergraduate degree in History from Loyola University of Chicago and a master’s degree in Early Childhood Development from National Louis University. Post graduate study has focused the US Constitution, in particular, analyzing the historical, philosophical, and religious influences which culminated in this covenant amongst the citizens of this country and between those governed and those elected to office.  An accomplished writer, Nancy contributes regularly to The World and I, a publication of the Washington Times, The New Media Journal, Family Security Matters, and a host of new media publications.  Highlights of her career including being invited to the Department of Education to meet with then Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, being selected to participate in the National Academy for Civics and Government, and writing and publishing Keeping a Republic: An Argument for Sovereignty for and through her 501c3, BasicsProject.org.

Social Bookmarking

Recent Articles Making Sense of the Legislative Branch... The Shot Heard Round the World Counting the Votes Before They Are In ‘Excuse Me...Can You Help Me with Some Change?’ For the General Welfare, or An Encroachment... The Turkey That Is Obamanomics An Abridgement of Constitutional Rights Utopia or Dystopian Nightmare? M-O-N-E-Y & Influence Political Science 101: Power Breeds Corruption Two Americas or One Nation with Liberty & Justice... Setting New Standards with Online Education Necessity is the Mother of Invention Circumnavigating the Rule of Law In Just 100 Days Defining Article 2, Section 1 in Context A Constitutionally Illiterate Congressional Leadership Natural Born Citizens Impoverishment, Elitism & Apathy An Alternative to Impending Doom Effective "Tools" in Education Houston, We Have a Problem Letting the Evidence Speak for Itself The Right to Defend Sovereignty Undermining Our Sovereignty from Without & Within Risking Our Nation’s Sovereignty True Patriots Put Country First The Oath of a Citizen The Constitution, Two Candidates & An Election Article II, Section 1: Just Words

Nancy Salvato, Senior Editor

Making Sense of the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government
March 23, 2010

When a teacher doesn’t have proficiency in a subject, it becomes fairly obvious to the student who, in trying to learn, will ask questions which will be answered unsatisfactorily by their instructor. It becomes a tragedy whenever students give up on the ideas being presented, thinking it is they who are unable to grasp what is being taught. Good teachers, realizing their limitations, continue to learn about a field so that eventually they bring a surplus of knowledge to their classroom. Then, when they are confronted with questions, they can pull from this surplus until everyone is presented with what is needed in order to gain a proper understanding of what is to be understood.

In the public school system, some subjects are required to be part of the basic and advanced curriculum through the 12th grade. They are considered to be such an important part of a well rounded education that students are expected to gain a degree of mastery over them before reaching adulthood. In math, students are introduced to basic concepts such as addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. They learn these concepts, and then these understandings become the foundation onto which more complex concepts are introduced, learned, and so on. Students will need these skill sets to work more and more complicated mathematical scenarios. If citizens graduate high school having learned math satisfactorily, they will quickly be able to calculate tips, balance checkbooks, and understand how to manage a budget. The foundation to execute these tasks will become second nature. They don’t have to think about how to do these things.

If learning about our system of government was considered as important as math, by the time students left high school, they would be able to think constitutionally. The fact that this is not the case might be viewed as a tragedy by a minority. The majority clearly does not view this a basic objective for what is learned in our schools, as evidenced by the fact that Social Studies, which is based on the notion of expanding environments, made the cut into the curriculum. For those who never really grasped the objective of Social studies, students progress from learning about being part of a family, to being part of a community, a city, a state, a region, a country, a world. Within the expanding environments theme, students typically spend a quarter memorizing what is written in the Constitution to pass a test of basic knowledge, perhaps receiving another quarter in high school, as part of a semester of U.S. History, in which they’re hopefully taught more advanced concepts. Students aren’t expected to learn much beyond the basics, when it comes to the Constitution. Within the context of Social Studies, it is given as much or as little time as anything else covered in the curriculum. Teachers aren’t expected to understand the philosophy or experiences that influenced the writers of the Constitution. Many aren’t well versed in the relevance of these ideas for our society today.

Finding a Path to Constitutional Literacy
All too often, when students are presented the Constitution, there is no surplus of knowledge and a high likelihood that that there are gaps in what is learned, which could lead to a misunderstanding of the intentions or expectations brought to bear by those who wrote, ratified, or rejected the document. To understand any piece of the document, one must understand the document in full because all the pieces are intended to work together.

There are many first source materials written during the formative years of this great nation to which one can turn for a surplus of information, and from which one can glean the complexities involved in the writing of the U.S. Constitution. While many might be familiar with the Federalist Papers, a collection of arguments authored by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay writing under the pseudonym Publius in which they defend the proposed system of government, the Antifederalist Papers are equally as important in helping us to decipher the rationale of those who opposed the Constitution’s ratification and which led to its adoption in its final form and with the promise of a Bill of Rights. By reading such first source materials, one can easily peruse the discussions and debate that took place over the division and distribution of enumerated powers amongst the states and the branches of the federal government. Being privy to the expectations or concerns voiced by those who drafted, defended, or argued against the U.S. Constitution can shed enormous light on how the checks and balances written into the document are intended to function as the first line of defense against undue influence manifesting in any of the three branches of government or in the states.

In trying to learn and teach the Constitution, it is a good exercise to take the founders own words about any topic that is covered in the document and to try to simplify their words in such a way that anyone can understand. Until that simple exercise can be mastered, it is a good bet that the intent behind the document will not be mastered. By comparison, a person can read about the game of football and read about football plays; yet, until one watches a play being executed or participates in the execution of a play, one cannot fully understand or appreciate the beauty of a well executed, strategized game of football.

A Republican Form of Government
James Madison argued, "the delegation of the Government, in the latter [in a republic], to a small number of citizens elected by the rest” will "refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice, will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.” ¹

Thomas Jefferson believed, "A government is republican in proportion as every member composing it has his equal voice in the direction of its concerns: not indeed in person, which would be impracticable beyond the limits of a city or small township, but by representatives chosen by himself and responsible to him at short periods." ²

John Adams wrote, "A man must be indifferent to the sneers of modern Englishmen to mention in their company the names of Sidney, Harrington, Locke, Milton, Nedham, Neville, Burnet, and Hoadley. No small fortitude is necessary to confess that one has read them. The wretched condition of this country, however, for ten or fifteen years past, has frequently reminded me of their principles and reasonings. They will convince any candid mind, that there is no good government but what is Republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; because the very definition of a Republic, is "an Empire of Laws, and not of men." That, as a Republic is the best of governments, so that particular arrangement of the powers of society, or in other words that form of government, which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the laws, is the best of Republics.” ³

These three men, Madison, Jefferson, and Adams are often considered as one entity, The Founders, as though each thought, believed, wanted the same things for our country. However, if one carefully reads what each of these men wrote, it is clear that they did not agree on all matters of regarding the meaning or intent of a republican form of government. This has implications for the role of a legislator and for the reason a person comes to office.

James Madison expected legislators to be well educated on the issues facing the country as a whole, not to be swayed by emotion or special interests, and to vote their own mind. Thomas Jefferson believed that legislators were to be delegates, reflecting the views of the constituents they are in office to represent. John Adams was equally distrustful of the representatives as those they would represent. He looked to the Constitution to control the passions and corruption associated with law emanating from mere men.

Because the document leaves room for interpretation and because of the varying interpretations of the document, not everyone has the same expectations for government or for those who represent the people in office. In Representative Democracy: Legislators and their Constituents, Michael Mezey explains that our government is sometimes referred to as a democracy instead of a republic. If we believe our country is a democracy, then we should agree with the idea that representatives elected to office serve as delegates of their constituents, they vote by proxy, they are simply a voice of the people. One might even go so far as to say, the more direct influence citizens can have on government, the better. On the other hand, if we think of our country as a republic; representatives might be thought of as trustees because clearly some founders feared direct democracy, and the mob rule of the majority or undue influence of the minority with which it was associated. Trustees vote with the expectation that they have more information than their constituents on which to formulate and base a decision, and it is intended they will promote the common interest while looking out for individual rights. ⁴

Regardless of whether a person believes that a legislator is a delegate or a trustee, both electors and those they elect need to be constitutionally literate, at the very least operate from the same premise so that expectations are clear. The Constitution was intended to protect the natural rights and promote the common interests of citizen and elected representative alike. Whether citizens are voting representatives into office or elected representatives are passing legislation for our country, if either group does so without a basic understanding of the intent and meaning behind the words of the U.S. Constitution, it results in the erosion of the checks and balances intended to protect our rights and promote the general welfare.

In Democratizing the Constitution: The Failure of the Seventeenth Amendment, C. H. Hoebeke writes,

"The result of the framers' deliberations was a tripartite division of political power among representatives chosen directly by the people, senators chosen by state legislatures, and a chief executive chosen by a temporary college of electors selected specifically for that purpose, either directly by the legislatures or in the manner they prescribed. Thus, while all political power ultimately derived from the people, each branch answered in an immediate way to an essentially different constituency from that of the others, and was thus considered less liable to fall victim to the same errors, the same impulses, or the same corrupting influences. By giving each department a "will of its own" with "as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others," the Constitution fragmented the power of the majority, deliberately supplying "opposite and rival interests" as a more reliable guarantee of individual freedom and minority rights than could reasonably be expected from merely relying on the good will of the superior number of citizens.” ⁵

Choosing the Legislative Branch
In light of the above, one might wonder how the expectations for the role of a Senator or Representative holding office after 1911 were permanently altered based on the fact that the 17th amendment to the U.S. Constitution transferred the role of each state’s legislature to select the Senators from that state to popular election by the people of each state. This amendment has important implications because the Framers obviously had very compelling reasons for setting up the legislative branch into a House of Representatives "composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People,” and a Senate "chosen by the Legislature thereof.”

Hoebeke tells us, "Even in those days of sparse population, direct elections were ruled out as a mockery of the true principles of representation. Candidates would have too little acquaintance with any but the largest or most vocal interests. By the same token, the individual citizen's vote, and the knowledge upon which it would be cast, counted for so little among the mass electorate that it would more than likely favor the intrigues of a well-organized few, adept at "taking advantage of the supineness, the ignorance, the hopes and fears of the unwary and interested." Locally elected legislators, chosen with greater competence on the part of the people, would serve as trustworthy intermediaries to select to the Senate "those men only who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue." ⁶

Mezey explains, "If the people are unfit to make good public policy, they should be equally unfit to select good and wise people to act on their behalf. On this reasoning, the Founders were almost as skeptical about representative institutions as they were about direct democracy. They therefore took steps to restrict the powers of the new Congress, and especially the House of Representatives…most importantly, the division of the Congress into two chambers with only the House of Representatives elected directly by the people.” ⁷

Tim Grieve writes in Everything you wanted to know about the "nuclear option, "The Senate isn't the most democratic of institutions, and it wasn't meant to be. The 52 senators from the 26 least populous states "could command a Senate majority even though they represent only 18 percent of the American population." ⁸

Policymaking in the Senate
Grieve tells us that 1917, the Senate adopted Rule XXII, which allows members to end a filibuster (unlimited debate) by a two-thirds vote (later amended to three-fifths vote on a motion to cut off debate. This procedure is called "cloture." ⁹

The nuclear option would take this three-fifths requirement and change it to a simple majority. Here is how it is done. The person presiding over the Senate could declare Rule XXII unconstitutional and rule that debate can be cut off by a simple majority vote. This rule could be appealed, but there could be a move to table the appeal , with a simple majority vote, which would then allow the ruling from the presiding officer to stand. Rule XXII would be declared unconstitutional, and the majority could end debate with a simple majority vote. ¹⁰

What would the Founders think of the nuclear option? Thomas Jefferson may not have minded, depending on what was written into the legislation.

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." ¹¹ -- Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:318

Betty K. Koed, the Associate Historian of the United States Senate Historical Office writes in The Ten Most Important Things to Know About the U.S. Senate,

"The Senate, James Madison said, would provide "a necessary fence” against sudden shifts in public opinion. "The use of the Senate,” he wrote, "is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system, & with more wisdom, than the popular branch.”

"There is an old story about the deliberative nature of the Senate and the important role it plays in legislation. Known as the "saucer and teacup story,” it may be apocryphal (we have not been able to document it prior to the 1850s), but it’s a good, illustrative story and is worth telling.

"It is said that on his return from France after the framers had completed the U.S. Constitution, creating two houses of Congress, Thomas Jefferson called Washington to account for having agreed to a second chamber, the Senate, in the U.S. Congress.

"Of what use is the Senate?” he asked Washington, as he stood before the fire with a cup of tea in his hand. As he asked the question, Jefferson poured some of the tea into his saucer, swirled it around a bit, and then poured it back into the teacup.

"You have answered your own question,” Washington replied.

"What do you mean?” Jefferson asked.

"Why did you pour the tea into your saucer?”

"To cool it,” said Jefferson.

"Just so,” said Washington, "that is why we created the Senate. The Senate is the saucer into which we pour legislation to cool.”

The Senate as the "cooling factor”—the House boils the water and makes the tea, but the Senate allows it to cool. This is a concept that students understand, and it is an idea that is completely consistent with the framers’ view of the Senate.

Is the Senate often slow-moving? Yes.

Does the Senate slow down the legislative process? Yes.

Does the Senate often force compromise to gain legislative success? Yes, and that’s just what the framers designed it to do. ¹²

Policymaking in the People’s House
Typically, students in middle and/or high school are required to read and write about something in the news for Current Events assignments. Most of the time a student summarizes an article and provides his or her thoughts about what was read. Sometimes students compare two different articles on the same subject. Here is an idea. How can one use this newfound information about the Constitution to help us better understand the motives of those who are trying to pass legislation quickly, using the nuclear option if necessary?

With regard to the legislation intended to mandate health insurance for all Americans, CBS News reported in, Pelosi hopes new health plan is poised to pass, that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., "wants to have the legislation on the floor next week, with a final vote before Veterans Day, Nov. 11 that would give President Barack Obama a bill to sign by year's end, numerous Democratic officials said.” ¹³

Without knowing anything at all about the legislation in question, one might question the motives or think to oneself, now I understand why the Founders divided the Legislative Branch into a House of Representatives and a Senate, and wanted to make sure the Senate works slowly and deliberatively.

CBS reported that in the House, it was expected no Republicans will vote for HR3962, the Pelosi Health Care Bill because it "would raise taxes on upper-income earners and cut Medicare payments to insurers, hospitals and other providers to cover a price tag that tops $1 trillion over 10 years.” ¹⁴

In fact, the bill was passed in the House on November 7. "The final vote was 220-215. In all, 219 Democrats voted to approve the measure in a largely party-line vote, with 39 Democrats voting no. One Republican supported the bill, Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.).” ¹⁵

What was it that Jefferson said about majority and minority rights? Let’s think about it. The will of the majority must be reasonable and must not violate minority rights.

If only some groups are expected to make sacrifices to ensure healthcare for everyone, are their minority rights being protected? How would such a bill redistribute the hard earned income of one group of people in this country? How does it affect the free market? Where do we get our rights? Is the government responsible for providing us rights or protecting our rights? Is health care a right?

Republican Leader John Boehner called the requirement that individuals purchase insurance "the most unconstitutional thing I've seen in my life." ¹⁶

Checks and Balances
In Federalist 57, James Madison wrote of the Senate, "They can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.” ¹⁷

Representative Mark Kirk (R, Ill) has sent out a letter with his take on Obamacare…

▪ On page 94 of HR3962, Section 202(c) prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government yet on page 225, Section 330, the proposed legislation permits but does not require members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care.

▪ Page 255, Section 345 does not include a requirement to verify applicants’ identity, thus encouraging identity fraud for undocumented immigrants and others wishing to receive taxpayer-subsidized health benefits. ¹⁸

Should the citizens of this country be required to pay for the benefits of those who are living in this country illegally?

▪ Page 297, Section 501 imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase "bureaucrat-approved” health insurance

▪ Page 313, Section 512 imposes an 8 percent "tax on jobs” for firms that cannot afford to purchase "bureaucrat-approved” health coverage; according to an analysis by Harvard Professor Kate Baicker, such a tax would place millions "at substantial risk of unemployment”— with minority workers losing their jobs at twice the rate of their white counterparts. ¹⁹

Of property, James Madison writes:

"A man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.”

"A man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.”

"He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.”

"He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.”

"He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.”

"In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.”

"Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions. Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.”

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”

"That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”

"A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.” ²⁰

The Bill is large and certainly there are more potential problems with it than outlined above. Now it will go to the Senate. "The bill must be passed in identical form by a majority in each house, and then it is sent to the President. If he signs the bill, it will become a law.” ²¹ What if the Senate doesn’t have a chance to debate the bill and make changes or even table it? What if the Senate were to use the Nuclear Option?

Antifederalists who argued against ratifying the Constitution expressed their concerns about Congress’ passing legislation under the guise of promoting the general welfare without consideration for individual rights. It is important to remember, it is because of the Antifederalists that there is a Bill of Rights; the Constitution was only ratified with the condition that a Bill of Rights be added. It was not ratified as a standing document without a Bill of Rights.

"And we conceive that there is no power which Congress may think necessary to exercise for the general welfare, which they may not assume under this Constitution. And this Constitution, and the laws made under it, are declared paramount even to the unalienable rights which have heretofore been secured to the citizens of these States by their constitutional compacts...” ²²

In Federalist No. 57, James Madison defended the Constitution against Congress’ potential abuse of power by explaining,

"The House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people. Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised; there forever to remain unless a faithful discharge of their trust shall have established their title to a renewal of it.” ²³

The midterm elections will make more sense when we see it play out through a Constitutional lens. Knowing a little bit more about the political process allows for more enlightened discussion and for more civically responsible responses to what is happening in the legislative branch of our government.

Can the bill be repealed? Can the courts rule it unconstitutional? What can citizens who don’t agree with the legislation because they believe their Constitutional rights are violated do about it, besides to vote officials out of office?

The answer to the first question is yes, Congress can introduce a bill to repeal a bill. What if a bill isn’t introduced to repeal the bill? Or what if a bill isn’t passed to repeal the bill? As soon as the bill is enacted and begins to be implemented, the law can be challenged in a court of law. This would not be the first time Congress will have been challenged over poorly thought out legislation.

Disregard for the Rule of Law
In Reckless Legislation: How Lawmakers Ignore the Constitution, Michael Bamberger tells us that Although Article VI of the Constitution requires any member of Congress take an oath to support the Constitution, in which the legislator accepts "the basic republican principles embodied in the Constitution and the principles of the Bill of Rights,” many disregard this oath, expecting that legislation they pass will go unchallenged and should it be challenged, it is, up to the courts to determine the constitutionality of a law, not them. This occurs, despite the fact legislators are obligated by their oath of office to give serious consideration to constitutional issues. ²⁴

CNSNews.com raises the question of constitutionality of the health care bill in a piece entitled, Sen. Hatch Questions Constitutionality of Obamacare: If Feds Can Force Us to Buy Health Insurance ‘Then There’s Literally Nothing the Federal Government Can’t Force Us to Do’

Terrence Jeffrey, editor in chief, writes,

When CNSNews.com asked Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) where the Constitution authorizes Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance, Leahy would not directly answer the question, claiming that "nobody" questioned Congress's authority to do this.

"We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?" Leahy told CNSNews.com reporter Matt Cover. "Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that."

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was equally dismissive of the question of where the Constitution authorized Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance. When reporter Matt Cover asked her the question, she said: "Are you serious? Are you serious?” ²⁵

The Antifederalists expressed concerns about this scenario, too.

"It is not supposed congress will adopt important measures without plausible pretenses, especially those which may tend to alarm or produce opposition. We are to consider the natural progress of things-that men unfriendly to republican equality will go systematically to work, gradually to exclude the body of the people from any share in the government, first of the substance, and then of the forms.”

"Probably they will be wise enough never to alarm, but gradually prepare the minds of the people for one specious change after another, till the final object shall be obtained.”

"It is said our people will be free, so long as they possess the habits of freemen, and when they lose them, they must receive some other forms of government. To this I shall only observe, that this is very humiliating language, and can, I trust, never suit a manly people who have contended nobly for liberty, and declared to the world they will be free.” ²⁶

Only in the Last Recourse
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson ²⁷

It is incredibly important for the citizenry of this country to think constitutionally and to be able to comprehend how legislation or amendments to the constitution might chip away at the checks and balances which were put in place to prevent the abuse of power and the erosion of our liberties.

"Direct elections among large constituencies all but guaranteed the development of permanent electioneering machinery, the imperative of fund-raising, as well as the strong likelihood of alliances between candidates seeking what Madison Avenue calls "name recognition" and the organized interests willing to pay to help them get it. What Publius wrote about the dangers of large assemblies would seem to apply equally to mass constituencies. The larger the electorate, "the fewer, and often the more secret, will be the springs by which its motions are directed." In form, "the government may become more democratic, but the soul that animates it will be more oligarchic." ²⁸

The founders put in place a system of government that was intended to promote the common interest while at the same time protecting our individual rights. They understood that the checks and balances could only withstand so much, and that an educated populace would have to keep a vigilant watch on those who represent them in office.

Perhaps the checks and balances can best be compared to the levies that broke during Hurricane Katrina. They were not built to withstand such strong forces and are beginning to buckle. The question we must ask ourselves is whether or not the Constitution can withstand the pressure or whether the people will be forced to water the tree of liberty.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." ²⁹ --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776.

Sources
¹ James Madison, Federalist, no. 10, 56—65, 22 Nov. 1787
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s19.html

^{2, 11} Coates, Eyler Robert, Sr. Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0500.htm
²⁷ http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0300.htm
²⁹ http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1770.htm

³ John Adams, Thoughts on Government Papers 4:86--93 Apr. 1776
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s5.html

^{4, 7} Mezey, Michael. Representative Democracy: Legislators and their Constituents (337, 197)
http://www.amazon.com/Representative-Democracy-Legislators-their-Constituents/dp/B002CZPXMG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=digital-text&qid=1257297130&sr=1-1

^{5, 6, 28} Hoebeke, C. H. Democratizing the Constitution: The Failure of the Seventeenth Amendment
http://www.nhinet.org/hoebeke.htm

^{8, 9, 10} Grieve, Tim Everything you wanted to know about the "nuclear option
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/05/12/nuclear_option_primer/index.html

¹² Koed, Betty K. The Ten Most Important Things to Know About the U.S. Senate
http://www.congresslink.org/print_expert_tenthingssenate.htm

^{13, 14} Pelosi hopes new health plan is poised to pass Oct 29, 2009
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/28/ap/politics/main5435582.shtml

^{15, 16} O’Connor, Patrick House passes historic health bill 11/7/09
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29282.html

^{17, 23} James Madison The Federalist No. 57 February 19, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa57.htm

H.R. 3962
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

^{18, 19} Rep. Mark Kirk: What’s Inside the Pelosi Health Care Bill?
http://healthcarehorserace.com/activism/10302009/rep-mark-kirk-whats-inside-the-pelosi-health-care-bill/

²⁰ James Madison, Property 29 Mar. 1792 Papers 14:266—68
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s23.html

²¹ How does a bill get passed in congress?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_a_bill_get_passed_in_congress

²² John F. Mercer Antifederalist No. 60 testimony to members of the ratifying conventions of New York and Virginia, 1788
http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/60.htm

²⁴ Bamberger, Michael Reckless Legislation: How Lawmakers Ignore the Constitution
http://www.amazon.com/Reckless-Legislation-Lawmakers-Ignore-Constitution/dp/B000SAQHP4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=digital-text&qid=1257696542&sr=1-1

²⁵ Jeffrey, Terence P., Sen. Hatch Questions Constitutionality of Obamacare: If Feds Can Force Us to Buy Health Insurance ‘Then There’s Literally Nothing the Federal Government Can’t Force Us to Do’ 11/2/09
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56447

²⁶ The Federal Farmer, Antifederalist No. 58 Will the House of Representatives Be Genuinely Representative? (Part 4)
http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/58.htm