Repeal the 17th Amendment
By Christian Soldier Posted in Law — Comments (31) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Excerpts from my Christmas List
The best thing “We the People” could have done with our constitution would have been to leave it alone. As written, the United States Constitution is by far the greatest document of governance ever created. The greatest testament to this is the fact that it has endured for over 200 years despite the medaling of scheming politicians and the apathy of a less than vigilant body politic. To address the deficiencies of each of the constitution’s amendments would require more time and space than are available within these confines. For the purpose of this blog entry I will address only the 17th amendment.
The 17th amendment takes the power to appoint Senators away from the state legislatures and instead has them elected by the populace of each state, the same way representatives are elected. Essentially, it voids Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution which reads, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.”.
The problem the 17th amendment creates is two fold. First, by taking the appointment of senators away from state legislatures the states are essentially without representation in the federal government. The senators become susceptible to the same electoral pressures as other elected officials and completely abandon the interests of their state with impunity.
The second problem is a byproduct of the first. Popular election of senators, instead of appointment by state legislatures, ostensibly diminishes the importance placed on, and the popular interest in, elections at the state and local level. Consequently, more power and focus is shifted to the federal government.
The intent of the founders was to create a system of government where most issues were solved at the local level and then gradually moved up the chain to the state and federal levels. The intent of this system was to bring only a relatively small number of matters to the federal level thus limiting the size and reach of the federal government and thereby preserving the power and sovereignty of the states. Politics were, by design, supposed to be local.
This form of justice was modeled mainly from the first 4 books of the Old Testament. “He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. They served as judges for the people at all times. The difficult cases they brought to Moses, but the simple ones they decided themselves.” (Exodus 18:24)
Had the 17th amendment never been enacted senators would be dependent on state legislatures for their appointment and more apt to look out for the interests of their states. Conversely, state legislatures would have the ability to remove senators that are derelict in their duties.
The original intent of Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution accomplishes two main objectives of a representative republic. First, it places greater importance on state and local elections and still gives the electorate some control of the appointment of senators. If the people of a state wanted to replace senators at the federal level, the way for them to do this would be to actively participate in state and local elections to try to influence the makeup and balance of power in their state legislature.
Second, the pressure of appointing senators would create a trickle down affect of accountability. Not only would senators be dependent upon state legislatures, state legislatures would be more dependent on its constituency. Political power would be firmly consolidated where it is supposed to be, in the people, and the gradual consolidation of power at the federal level would be avoided. With two leftist parties in power, an apathetic constituency, and the gradual annexation of powers by the federal government, modification of the constitution is a recipe for disaster.
A republic is defined by Webster’s as “a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officials and representatives governing according to law.” With supreme power also comes supreme responsibility. As Americans and inhabitants of the greatest society ever created a vested interest in political matters is paramount, as Benjamin Franklin presciently said when asked by a reporter at the Constitutional Convention, “What have you wrought?” he responded “A republic; if you can keep it.”
-Miles Christianus
The U.S. Constitution - It's in there; look it up.
We have a state legislature representative in MT named Rick Jore who is a strong proponent of repealing the 17th amendment. A few years ago he switched from the Republican Party to the Constitution Party. While I don't agree with his party on everything, I believe he is a modern day Statesman. He votes on what he believes is right and not what will get him re-elected. These are the kind of people we would need in the Senate in order to repeal it. We need these kind of people everywhere in government, not just in the US Senate!
------------
"The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
A resolution memorializing Congress, IIRC, to repeal the 17th Amendment, sponsored by Rep. Tom Brusegaard, R-Gilby. Just got a handful of votes. Demogogued shamelessly by the Democrats as part of a "huge Republican majority wants to take away your rights" message.
But we keep the faith!
It will never be done. Any proposition that would require statesmen to fill 2/3 of the seats in both houses of Congress will never pass.
Brent Money
-- Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. But it rocks absolutely, too. --
with constitutional amendments: Prohibition aside, they prove impossible to undo when circumstances or opinions change. That is why many of us who are traditionally conservative don't support the FMA, balanced budget, or flag burning amendments.
If you often find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be a Democrat.
-CommonCents
But I can still dream!!! Right after or before the repeal of the 17th let's get rid of the 16th as well!! Merry Christmas! :-)
-Miles Christianus
The U.S. Constitution - It's in there; look it up.
(Great comments) we hade here awhile back to add to youe excellent post Repealing the 17th Amendment
it in the first place. I don't know much about the legislative history behind it but it seems to me that would be a good place to start.
Historical background
The selection of delegates to the Constitutional Convention established the precedent that states could choose Federal officials at a higher level than direct election. Originally senators were to be elected by their state legislatures to represent the individual and semisovereign states. This was possibly done to also increase the chances for ratifying the Constitution. Because most of the founders of the Articles of Confederation wanted a looser group of sovereign states, this clause was inserted in order to keep the "sovereign states" represented in federal government. They also expected that senators elected by state legislatures would be able to concentrate on the business at hand without regional pressure from the populace, aided by a longer term than Representatives.
This process worked without major problems through the mid-1850s, when the American Civil War was in the offing. Due to increasing partisanship and strife, many state legislatures failed to elect Senators for prolonged periods. An example: In Indiana the conflict between Democrats in the southern half of the state and the emerging Republican Party in the northern half prevented an election for two years. The aforementioned partisanship led to contentious battles in the legislatures, as the struggle to elect senators reflected the increasing regional tensions in the lead up to the Civil War.
After the war, problems still multiplied. In one case in the mid-1860s, the election of Senator John Stockton from New Jersey was contested on the grounds that he had been elected by a plurality (majority of those voting) rather than a majority (of the entire membership) in the state legislature[citation needed]. Stockton defended himself on the grounds that the exact method for elections was murky and varied from state to state. To keep this from happening again, Congress passed a law in 1866 regulating how and when senators were to be elected from each state. This was the first change in the process of senatorial elections. While the law helped, there were still numerous deadlocks in some legislatures and accusations of bribery, corruption and suspicious dealings in some elections. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906. In addition, forty-five deadlocks occurred in twenty states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating senators. Beginning in 1899, Delaware did not send a senator to Washington for four years.
Reform efforts began as early as 1826, when direct election was first proposed. In the 1870s, voters sent a petition to the House of Representatives for popular election. From 1893 to 1902, momentum increased considerably. Each year during that period, a constitutional amendment to elect senators by popular vote was proposed in Congress, but the Senate fiercely resisted change. In the mid-1890s, the Populist Party incorporated the direct election of senators into its party platform, although neither the Democrats nor the Republicans paid much notice at the time. Direct election was also part of the Wisconsin Idea championed by Republican progressive Robert La Follette and Nebraska Republican reformer George Norris. In the early 1900s, Oregon pioneered direct election and experimented with different measures over several years until it succeeded in 1907. Soon after, Nebraska followed suit and laid the foundation for other states to adopt measures for direct election.
After the turn of the century, momentum for reform grew rapidly. William Randolph Hearst expanded his publishing empire with Cosmopolitan, which became a respected general-interest magazine and championed the cause of direct election with muckraking articles and strong advocacy of reform. Hearst hired a veteran reporter, David Graham Phillips, who wrote scathing pieces on senators, portraying them as corrupt pawns of industrialists and financiers. The pieces became a series titled "The Treason of the Senate," which appeared in several monthly issues of the magazine in 1906. [1]
Increasingly, senators were elected based on state referenda, similar to the means developed by Oregon. By 1912, as many as 29 states elected senators either as nominees of their party's primary or in conjunction with a general election. As representatives of a direct election process, the new senators supported measures that argued for federal legislation, but in order to achieve total reform, a constitutional amendment was required. In 1911, Senator Joseph Bristow from Kansas offered a resolution, proposing a constitutional amendment. The idea also enjoyed strong support from Senator William Borah of Idaho, himself a product of direct election. Eight Southern senators and all Republican senators from New England, New York, and Pennsylvania opposed Senator Bristow's resolution. The Senate approved the resolution largely because of the senators who had been elected by state-initiated reforms, many of whom were serving their first term, and therefore may have been more willing to support direct election. After the Senate passed the amendment, the measure moved to the House of Representatives.
The House initially fared no better than the Senate in its early discussions of the proposed amendment. In the summer of 1912 the House finally passed the amendment and sent it to the states for ratification. The campaign for public support was aided by senators such as Borah and political scientist George H. Haynes, whose scholarly work on the Senate contributed greatly to passage of the amendment.[citation needed]
The last state needed to ratify was Connecticut, which ratified it in 1913, one year prior to the United States Senate election, 1914.
I don't see many serious federalists here who would disagree with you. I favor doing away with the 17th also.
What I would love to see is a story on how to make this an issue with popular support. There are many good ideas that would benefit the country that are easily discredited because of the ease of the 30 second attack soundbite. Ideas like abolition of minimum wage for improved econonmy and job growth, or abolition of federal education financial aid to lower the cost of college for everyone and to improve higher education through the competition for student dollars.
Stop dreaming about it and give us some ideas on how to move it forward!
Best,
HT
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
...already had chosen to directly elect Senators to make certain the passage of a Federal Amendment along those lines. I don't know if that's true, but it sounds plausible enough.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Make that SIGN me up!
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
What happens at RedState stays at RedState :)
Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey
Repealing the 17th won't matter unless each state will appoint Senators without using a vote from the people. IIRC prior to the 17th being ratified most states already passed laws to have an election as the way for the legislature to choose their Senators, the 17th just made is uniform across the country.
Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey
All we need are a few states, and suddenly we'll have voices for the States in the Senate again.
Also, we might actually get more than you think, if people look at it from a campaign finance perspective.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
I've thought about this alot. Your are correct in your concerns, but state legislatures ARE represented in Congress. In fact, the intent of the framers has been reversed. By direct election, the Senate is now the real voice of the people. In fact, through things like pork, senators very much represent the interests of their states.
By the invention of gerrymandering, House delegations generally represent the state legislature better than senators do.
-------------------------------------
"As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this."
- George Mason
I cannot really argue against the 17th Amendment because the states started the movement in the first place. A clear majority of them wanted Senators to be directly elected and the 17th Amendment just codified the practice being implemented by a majority of the states. Furthermore, having a majority of elected Senators while having some unelected Senators probably would have caused the elected Senators and probably the public de-legitimize the unelected Senators as not representing the public will. In my opinion, you have to either have appointed Senators or elected Senators, not both.
I also doubt the Senate would be as powerful as it is today if not for the direct election of its members. Two foreign examples prove this point. The Canadian Senate, which is currently unelected, has lost much of its power and now is nothing but a rubber stamp on the House of Commons usually. This probably will change somewhat if Prime Minister Harper gets his electoral and term reform plans passed. In contrast, the elected Australian Senate has been an effective check on majority power in the Australian House of Representatives. Constitutionally, all three Senates have similar powers with the US Senate being the only one with the power of confirmation of Executive appointments and impeachment. The other two have some form of being able to force elections.
The biggest problem I see is that State Legislature races will be come proxy races for senate contests, meaning Legislators would be picked based on who they supported for Senate rather than their views on the issues facing the State. The was Frequently the case before the passing of the 17th Amendment. I'm sure you all know of the Lincoln Douglas Debates where the two men travelled across Illinois campaigning and arguing with each other over the issues of the day. Why did they do this, if they only had to convince the State Legislature? Because they were trying to get their supporters elcted to the legislature, that's why. In what should have been a vote about which party would best govern the the State of Illinois became instead a vote on what policy the Country should take regarding slavery in the territories. The same thing would happen again if the seventeenth amendment was repealled. Furthermore many Southern States support Democrats for Local Issues and Republicans for national ones. Do you really want Alabama and Missippi sending Democrats to the Senate? While the absract arguements about State representation on the Federal level do have some sway, in practice Federal Elections are going to influence state outcomes, and not the other way around.
I think that these days, state government gets too little attention from too many voters. If suddenly their votes for their state people would have critical national importance, then they'd pay more attention. Even if they didn't pay attention on their own, even, national groups interested in the Senate races would bring the races to the voters' attention!
And furthermore, as for the South, it's not a Democratic as it used to be. Realignment has come rather far along now, with that region showing hints of its future Republicanism in the 1964 Presidential, starting to go consistently Republican in Presidential elections in 1980, and finally going more Republican in lower races in large numbers in 1994.
And even when the legislators are Democrats, they're not usually the same kinds of Democrats that the people would elect. I imagine a state like Georgia, for example, would send fewer Cynthia McKinney-types and more Zell Miller-types when they sent Democrats.
And even if in the short term it were a partisan disadvantage, it's still the right thing to do. Bring it on. Repeal that sucker.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
Direct elections of Senators only encourage more usurpation of power from the states... and the state legislatures, since they don't have representation in Congress, have nothing to say about it. That's how you end up with every single Senator voting for "you state legislatures better pass this law - or else" measures like .08 BAC. If they were appointed by the legislatures the vote would be the other way around.
The biggest problem I see is that State Legislature races will be come proxy races for senate contests, meaning Legislators would be picked based on who they supported for Senate rather than their views on the issues facing the State.
In reality, there would be a lot fewer "Federal" issues to even talk about and they would lose much of their importance to the electorate if we didn't have direct electors of Senators. Instead of asking a prospective Senator "What kind of cool stuff are you going to build around my house?" and "What are you going to do to solve this problem that the Federal government has no business trying to solve?", they could direct the inquiry to their state legislator, which is where it belongs in the first place.
--
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Re: The best thing “We the People” could have done with our constitution would have been to leave it alone.
Some amendments have been necessary: the 12th which fixed a glitch that caused in the hung election of 1800 (and could have caused even worse mischief). The 13th, 14th and 15th, I hope you'll agree. The 19th was not strictly speaking necessary (woemn's suffrage could have been enacted by the states separately; some already had) but its probably best it was handled nationally and the issue put to rest.
The Founders knew they were not all-seeing or omniscent so they gave us the amendment process, but also made it difficult to do to guard against momentary public passions egged on by demagogues.
An alternative work around to the problem, just as they used one to start the 17th amendment before it's time, is to pass state laws that require a state legislature nomination to have a senatorial candidate placed on the ballot. This will relegate the electorate to final approval status, or veto status. That will create the best of both worlds. At least in lieu of repeal, which will take awhile to accomplish, if at all. I'd prefer repeal though.
Just a thought.
Wubbies World - The odds of hitting your target go up dramatically when you actually aim for it!
Not only do I support the movement...I would vote for almost anyone who could guarantee that they would be able to pass term limits for senators. These people are supposed to be public servants, NOT career politicians....unfortunately I am dreaming if I think this could happen....I simply fail to see what a millionaire senator has in common with the people he/she is supposed to represent, speak and vote for.
To make my point, I had this conversation with my very-conservative parents, and brought up the long-loved senator from my state Jesse Helms....Mom and Dad absolutely love Jesse...I just did not see it, more than 18 years in the office is too long...2 terms is more than enough time to make an impact, serve this country and keep your eye on the ball. Senators like Kennedy, Byrd, Thurman....what could they possibly offer to the American people?
Stranded in a blue section of a red state.
I'm not sure that, in this day and age, legislative appointment of Senators will do anything besides increase the states' hunger for pork, and their leverage to extract it.
"I am afraid that even after the American people will elect those who promise to leave Iraq, the U.S. will not do so." - Hamas leader Abu Abdullah
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
of repealling the 17th Amendment. I think it's a great way to restore states rights, and also it's a great way for the common man to get into the U.S. Senate. That's if the 17th is ever restored to how it once was.
I've seen some support here at RS when this topic has come up in the past.
Unfortunately, I'm hard pressed to see a pathway to a repeal of the 17th Amendment. How will you get our current Senators to approve an amendment (by a 2/3rds vote, no less) that would jeopardize their incumbency? Also, in some (most?) states, the state legislature is held in low esteem. Plus, the spirit of the age is towards more government by pleblecite (witness the rise of Initiatives), and there is a strong wind against federalism (and towards supranational government) in many circles, both in and out of government.
Can someone else can see the way there?