A Senate of the States: June 12th – June 13th, 1787

Article V Blog ^ | October 19th 2017 | Rodney Dodsworth

[Jacquerie]

As of June 12th, the evolving senate still had no powers beyond those of the Confederation. Additional powers arrived after delegates determined its institutional shape and characteristics.

At issue was the senate’s relationship with the lower house and the executive branch. Governor Randolph reminded the committee “the democratic licentiousness of the state legislatures proved the necessity of a firm senate.” The best model was the senate of Maryland, which consisted of fifteen members appointed to five-year terms by an electoral college of two electors from each county and one each from the cities of Baltimore and Annapolis. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Senate] Yet, even the independent MD senate was scarcely capable of withstanding the occasional popular torrent. Not only did the people’s house pose a threat to free government, but a firm senate will guard the Constitution against the machinations of a chief executive who combines with the demagogues of the popular branch.

James Madison (VA) sought a stability in the new government that was so lacking in the states. While seven-year terms promoted stability, he still feared the house would overwhelm the senate. Notwithstanding the MD senate, he lamented the lack of experience to guide them. On the positive side, the MD senate never threatened free government, and he remarked that it had the confidence of the “most enlightened and impartial people of the other States as well as of their own.”

Madison, in words overwhelmed by the 19th century Progressive movement and the 17th Amendment, warned against a popularly elected senate:

In the States where the Senates were chosen in the same manner as the other branches of the Legislature, and held their seats for four years, the institution was found to be no check whatever against the instabilities of the other branches . . .

[Jacquerie]

James Madison warns of a popularly elected senate.

[wita]

Heeding the warning, the States rejected ratifying the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Instead, it became a progressive win of monstrous proportions if you believe it was properly ratified. There are questions in some minds if it was truly properly ratified.

Red Beckman had a few things to say about the Seventeenth as did this group: http://www.thecnc.org/Documents/17thAmendment.htm
My own contention is this: In 1913 so called progressives managed to change how Senators were elected, turning Senators into Representatives of the people but they failed to change the term of office which should have been two years not six.

Well, nothing is stopping us from rejecting it through nullification. Unless you prefer the Article V route, which in my humble opinion is going to be more difficult to do. Ten States with the Governor and Legislature just agreeing to say no to the Seventeenth would win the day for most of the rest.

Now, whether there would then be a fundamental change in the type of person chosen to represent a State vs what is now in the Senate, would be the question on most people’s mind, and time would be needed to resolve the issue.

[PGalt]

History, education, where-we-go-from-here BUMP! OUTSTANDING work, Jacquerie. Thanks.

[Jacquerie]

I haven’t read anything of substance regarding non-ratification of the 17A. Yes, any event it is a progressive win of monstrous proportions . . . that must go. I clicked your link and checked out some articles. I can’t say I’m a nullification supporter. State nullification of national laws would render the union a confederacy of independent states. OTOH, administrative regulations from DC deserve no respect from the states and should be actively opposed.

I’ve been careful to never guarantee the outcome of an Article V COS. It is just the best course of peaceful action to possibly reverse the rot.

Oh, to what does “16 American Jurisprudence” refer?

[Jacquerie]

Thanks PG!

[wita]

State nullification of national laws would render the union a confederacy of independent states.

Precisely what the founding fathers said we were independent States. I might leave out the word confederacy as that smacks of 1777, but States loaned the Federal Government the power to exist, not fundamentally change the way government operated, amendments notwithstanding. After the Civil War, States were bullied into seeing the Fed as their overseer not as it should be the Fed at the mercy of the States except for Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution that clearly says what government is allowed to be engaged in.

[Jacquerie]

I’ve written extensively about nullification and sovereignty.

If you keyword either at my website, you’ll get several hits on each.

[wita]

If you keyword either at my website, you’ll get several hits on each.

Thanks, I will do so.

Oh, to what does “16 American Jurisprudence” refer?

Must have missed this the first time through, and did not see it in any of the articles I have read. Maybe if you can point me to it I’ll research further. I do have a friend that quotes American Jurisprudence often. I’m sure he can spread some light on the issue.