Like the European Council of the E.U., the U.S. Senate has polities rather than citizens as represented members. That is
to say, in both cases, the states are represented. In the case of the E.U., the
chief executives of the respective states represent them. In the U.S. case, the
citizens of the states elect senators directly, who in turn are tasked with
representing their respective states.
From the standpoint of representing the polities, the E.U. case is tighter, for
a U.S. senator is susceptible to the temptation to vote in the interests of the
state’s citizens who voted rather than of the state itself. The two interests
may overlap, but they are not identical, for citizens of a member-state may or
may not be interested in protecting the prerogatives of the state (government).
The Republican legislative responses to the Affordable Care Act (i.e., “Obamacare”)
are a case in point.
Under the Act, state governments could expand their Medicaid
programs to cover anyone with incomes less than 138% of the federal poverty
level, with the federal government picking up the tab through 2018 and 90%
thereafter. Even Republican-controlled state governments saw that the deal was
in their fiscal interests even if it meant giving up some sovereignty in the
domain of health-care to the federal government. Nevertheless, a Republican
electorate could vote for one of its U.S. Senators based on the sentiment that
poor people should not get “free money.” Behind this is a sort of “survival of
the fittest” philosophy wherein the weak should not be propped up.
Additionally, prejudice or even animosity towards the drudge of society could
be in the mix. From a European standpoint, such a sentiment must seem rather
odious, and foreign. In any case, the
majority of a state’s voters may at some point vote contrary to their state
government’s interests. Being selected by the voters rather than the
government, who do you think a U.S. senator is going to pay attention to, other than institutional
campaign-contributors, in deciding how to vote on whether to retain
Obamacare?
On July 17, 2017, Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican
majority leader in the U.S. Senate, announced that his second attempt to repeal
and replace Obamacare had failed for lack of votes. Back in March, the Kansas
legislature had voted to expand Medicaid. Nevertheless, Sen. Moran of that
state said in July, “There are serious problems with Obamacare, and my goal
remains what it has been for a long time: to repeal and replace it.”[1]
In coming out against the proposed replacement, he said it “fails to repeal the
Affordable Care Act or address health care’s rising costs.”[2]
By omission, we can discern from his statement that he was not opposed to
rescinding the expansion of Medicaid even
though his own state’s government had approved it.
Because the states as
polities are members of the U.S. Senate, I submit that a senator’s
discretion should not extend to such a point that it goes against the will of
his or her state’s government. Accordingly, a state government should be able
to direct the state’s U.S. Senators
to take particular positions. A senator’s discretion would come into play when
a government is of mixed opinion. For instance, the legislative chambers may
disagree, or the legislature and governor may differ on the state’s interest on
a proposed piece of federal legislation. State governments could of course
legislate which offices (e.g., governor) and legislative chambers would have a
voice in directing the senators on particular legislative measures before the
U.S. Senate. Without such a tie to a state’s government, a U.S. senator could
undercut the state’s representation
in the U.S. Senate with impunity. This may in part be why the states have lost
so much governmental sovereignty to the federal institutions, thus unbalancing
American federalism at the expense of its checks and balances in defense of
liberty and justice for all.
For more on the U.S. Senate and the E.U. Council, see the book: Essays on Two Federal Empires
[1]
Thomas Kaplan, “Health
Care Overhaul Collapses as Two Republican Senators Defect,” The New York Times, July 17, 2017.
[2]
Ibid.
