Posted on 05/12/2014 8:19:56 PM PDT by montag813
Don't do me any favors, it started at absurd from my perspective. You are very smug in your premise that you know exactly what would have happened had the 17th amendment not been passed, and what would happen if it were to be repealed but any rational person knows that your position is arrogant at best.
A state's legislature, which itself may not reflect the electorate in its makeup. Not a "state." You see, this is the problem here. You equate the legislature as being "the state" while I argue the state is itself, the people. In this case, the people at large.
The constitution itself defines the States and the people as separate entities. That you think they are the same when they clearly are not, both in fact and in principle, might explain why you can't understand the fundamental concept of checks and balances the Constitution was written to incorporate.
The Senate is to check and balance the House, ideally.
Ideally the Senate was to balance the interest of the State against the interest of the People in the House. As it is now as both are directly elected they don't particularly balance anything.
Except that it happened, and often that was merely in how they managed to obtain election.
Historical evidence shows that while there were accusations there was very little proof of corruption when it come to elections. Compare that to now and the process is far more corrupt and in many cases legally corrupt.
Corruption then, corruption now. Go back to the Gilded Age and see how well regarded the Senate was.
How well regarded would it have been had there not been a concerted effort, that can be historically substantiated, to make the Senate look far worse than it was. Considering that the some of the same people that helped fund the communist "revolution" were behind the push of the 17th (and 16th) amendments, it should give a rational person pause especially now when we have the benefit of hindsight.
You attached the modifier of "horrible." For the people of Delaware, it would certainly be a situation of import. With the people deciding their Senators, such a situation would not occur. This is another example of your definition of legislature equaling state.
The people of Delaware were not being represented by Senators at the time, the state was. I don't actually equate the legislature as the entirety of the state, just a body of State government that at that time determined the States representation in Congress. Certainly a state failing to send Senators to congress (something that rarely happened) isn't cause enough to sweep away the original concept of congress.
So now you firmly put yourself in the camp of the 17th as the root of all evil where the last 100 years of this country is concerned. This is where you guys totally go off your proverbial rockers. It's pure silliness.
Except everything I said is demonstrably true and you are characterizing as something that wasn't said. The 17th did in fact change congress to something it was never intended to be and it completely removed the representation of the State in congress, therefore removing a real check against the power of the Federal government. That's a fact. I never claimed it was the root of all evil, although I would suggest that it sprang from the root of all evil.
That is such a sweeping generalization of a query that it cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, but you want to tie it back to the "17th is the root of all evil.
No...it really isn't a sweeping generalization at all. It would take a long time to list how many ways the government is worse and there is no way to balance it against those few things in government that are better. While not all if it directly related to the 17th amendment it certainly sprang from the same mindset. That you don't see this makes me question your rationality yet again.
After the 1920s, the GOP only occasionally held a majority of legislatures, and they would've mostly been in the minority. Not until the 1990s did they begin to show strength again for any elongated period, but in many states, they would be as shut out, and for perpetuity, as many Southern states used to be. To wit: for our Dem states, there would've been no GOP Senators as follows (CA-1960s, CT-early '70s, HI-pre-statehood, IL-'70s, MD-1890s, MA-1956, MN-pre '70s, NV-pre '80s, NJ-'90s, NM-1928, NY-1970, RI-1928/30, VT-1970, WV-1928), again just a few examples off the top of my head. I've analyzed the numbers elsewhere from time to time. Even those states that would send Republicans, what would pass for them would certainly be of the King Pork/Big gubmint/left-wing vintage. Especially now.
I've read a number of studies that refute your opinion based on historical make up of State legislatures, regardless the entire premise is based on the illogical concept that if the 17th amendment not been ratified then everything would have followed in exactly the same way, and that is simply wild eyed fantasy.
You're not going to get a check and balance on the increasing power of the federal government with repeal, which is the main tenet of your argument. That frankly went out the window with the Civil War, long before the 17th.
This isn't even a topic of debate, it's simple fact. If the 17th Amendment were repealed, the States would regain representation in Congress. I doubt it would be a pancea for all of our ills, but it literally would provide a check and balance that was stripped with the ratification of the 17th.
And yet this one does, because you leave out one enormous element: how it works. The Constitution was written for the express purpose of providing an amendment process. For things not covered at the time, or for things enacted and found unworkable. As I have cited, the Senate as a body was corrupted in the 19th century. The method by which Senators were elected became simply untenable. It didn't work anymore, and something had to be done about it.
I've been stating quite clearly how it was supposed to work and you have been arguing in support of breaking how it was supposed to work. The constitution does allow the constitution to be changed, obviously, that has never been in question. That is what we are debating after all. That being said, I think the 17th was either a spectacularly stupid change or, far more likely, a deliberate change to increase the power of the Federal government. Your statement that the method of electing senators was broken is historically incorrect.
Again, I'm knowledgeable enough about all of our states that I can indeed tell you the likely players. See, that is what I have spent years studying (and still do every day with each election). You take umbrage and utterly dismiss that I can, at will, give those names. Any state you name and I'll likely be able to tell you precisely whom the Senate would send with repeal. This again remains an enormous blind spot, willful naivete, on the subject at hand where your side is concerned. Some dismiss this entirely with the argument that they could care less who would sit in the Senate with repeal, so long as it is repealed. That it would essentially lack for any Conservatives doesn't matter. Well, it matters. We've already gifted the left enough, and this would be the cherry on top.
If the 17th amendment hadn't been ratified would we have entered WW1? I know you can't really answer that, just like you can't really answer what would have happened in every local and state race up until today had the 17th amendment not been ratified, just like you can't say what the make of congress will be in 2016 either with or without the repeal of the 17th amendment. That you can look at the make up of a state legislature today and make a good guess it's completely beside the point because with a repeal the state legislature wouldn't be choosing new Senators today.
Early on, very early on, they did not. But the earliest Senators tried to abide by the Constitutional prescription and were fiercely loyal to their states. That went out the window before long, as I already outlined. Some states with single-party majorities for perpetuity started sending some members for ever increasing periods of time. When Missouri and Alabama were Jacksonian states, they sent two men for decades (Thomas Hart Benton and William Rufus de Vane King), and this was prior to the Civil War. Afterwards, in heavy GOP states, you had a similar situation of members occupying Senate seats for decades (with one member from Vermont staying in office in both bodies from prior to the Civil War up until his death before the turn of the century). Only in some states with a strong two-party system did you have an aggressive turnover, but the downside for those Senators is that they ended up having the least amount of power in contrast to the others. ... As I wrote above, you did indeed have some Senators serving long stretches, protected by one-party states. Unless you consider one member serving, with only one brief interruption when he was an Ambassador, from 1819 to 1852 (King) as a "short time" or from 1821 to 1851 (Benton), or other 2 and 3 decade members. Curious the Founding Fathers didn't tackle the concept of term limits. I doubt they could've imagined the audacity of a person to agreeing to serve for decades on end in office, but that went on during your pre-17th Era of Utopia.
Out of the 25 longest serving members of the senate only William Allison (#24) served the entirety of his term before the 17th amendment was ratified. Only two other Senators in the top 25 started their terms before 1917 and continued to be elected after the 17th. Francis Warren (#13) served 23 years before the 17th and 16 years after. Ellison D. Smith (#22) served 4 years before the 17th and 31 years after. This alone completely refutes your argument, but consider this; prior to the 17th amendment incumbents were re-appointed approximately 70% of the time. After the 17th amendment the incumbent has won election 91% of the time.
Well, that argument of yours just got obliterated.
Right back at ya, except I'm historically correct.
One could. One could also imagine how much less those elitist Senators would have to worry about rolling the people every 6 years when they can just go back to the old way of bribery and threats of the legs. What fun.
Or one could simply look at all the Senators getting back into office at a much greater rate then before the 17th amendment and wonder why we continue with the failed change.
And again, you equate legislature with the state. I, as I have said endlessly, do not.
And again, I will go with the constitutional principle rather than your (plainly incorrect) opinion that you pulled out of who knows where.
Rosebud ! By George, if it hadn't been for them meddling muckrakers and pesky Progs, we'd still have our great Senate today and everything would be sunshine and lollipops. Ignore all evidence that the Senators and their behavior (nevermind the corrupt legs) brought it all on themselves going back to the 19th century.
Your attempt at humor is noted. Valiant effort to deflect. Regardless, factually it is very hard to find any actual evidence of election corruption prior to 1913. If I recall correctly only two elections were investigated and neither provided much in the way of hard evidence. Hardly justification for re-writing the constitution yet somehow it happened. That it also just happened to remove an important bulwark against and increase in federal power, and that Federal power just happened to expand at a rate never seen previously before is just pure circumstance I'm sure.
What a horrid notion ! Who in their right mind would want to empower politicians at a time when they and their other allies in arms in blowing up the size and scope of gubmint beyond all proportion need to be STRIPPED of their powers?
Repeal of the 17th amendment, quite literally, wouldn't increase either the power of the Senate or the power of Senators. The only thing it would do is change who the Senate represents.
Yay ! Let's substitute one corruption for another. What do we gain ? Nothing ! When do we want it ? Now ! Sorry, Durus, it's a valiant effort, but very lame in the end.
I'm not quite sure that you are as dense as all that. Very plainly we would regain State representation in congress the way the founders intended it to be. Without the State being represented there was no reason to create a bicameral Congress in the first place. All claims of (historically absent of proof) corruption prior to the 17th amendment and all very real corruption today aside, why are you so against the constitution as envisioned. Your protests of a "broken system" are demonstrably false, your protest of corruption are not historically supportable, your speculation as to what would happen if the 17th hadn't been ratified isn't plausible enough for a fantasy novel, and your failure to simply acknowledge the distinction between "The People" and "The States" makes me question your motive in this conversation and the sincerity of your position.
I’m a silly person? You are seriously suggesting that had the 17th amendment not been ratified that the make up of the legislature of SC would be exactly the same and Jesse Helms would be considering a career in office? I don’t even know where to begin at how silly that is.
That’s an interesting idea.
First of all, Jesse Helms was from NC, not SC.
Second, do you really believe that voters in NC magically would have voted for Republicans for the state legislature throughout the 20th century just because the legislators elect U.S. Senators? That 17th-Amendment repeal sure is magical! Would it have helped Aramis Ramirez catch that foul popup in the 2003 NLCS? Because that would have been awesome—imagine, the Cubs in the World Series! You’ve convinced me, I won’t engage in rank speculation such as thinking that the myriad causes that resulted in North Carolinians voting Democrat for the state legislature over a 130-year period would not have evaporated instantly with the repeal of the 17th Amendment; I instead will limit my assumptions to things that logically follow, such as the elimination of all social ills and a new birth of freedom in the nation the second that those noble patriots in the state legislatures once again are entrusted with the election of U.S. Senators.
Remarkable.
I'm pretty sure believing in a personally made up alternate reality makes one, technically at least, delusional. Just sayin.
Have you heard of the economic concept of ceteris paribus? Well, I’m saying that, all other things being equal, a state whose voters elected Democrats to the state legislature for a 130-year period would not have done a 180 and started electing Republicans halfway through that 130-year period just because the state legislature regained the power to elect U.S. Senators. It is risible that you can impute such magical powers to the repeal of the 17th Amendment. The number of voters who would switch from Democrat to Republican just because one of the umpteen things that state legislators do is elect U.S. Senators would be a very small number. In most states, governors get to appoint U.S. Senators in the case of a vacancy—how many voters switch allegiance just because one of the umpteen things that a governor does is appoint U.S. Senators? For decades voters in Massachusetts displayed their preference for electing liberal Democrats to the U.S. Senate, yet they still voted for Republicans for governor in 1990, 1994, 1998 and 2002, and it took the Democrat legislature to change the law (overriding the governor’s veto) so that the governor could not appoint a replacement Senator until the next general election. You are assuming that voters would react far differently with the repeal of the 17th Amendment and would begin to elect conservative Republican state legislators just because of two votes they cast in each six-year period, and that is a whopper of an assumption.
Durus, I will concede to you... that you can write a longer post than I. Other than that, you and I will never agree, and I’m not going to waste an hour of my time more on this pointless back and forth.
That you continue to reject the actual political dynamics of the legislatures where they would play a role in whom they would send to D.C. and use hyperbole at those that dare to explicitly cite names and facts shows why your argument is so fallacious.
Ultimately, repeal of the 17th does nothing to advance the cause of Conservatism (nor that of the states, despite what you may believe), the sole interest that will save the nation from itself, but serves only to increase the power of the political class, which has gone far beyond any logical or legitimate scope.
Maybe you have no particular problem having your legislature make decisions for you and choose your own elected officials, but I do. I do not trust mine, nor do I trust them to do what is right. I live in a legislative (State Senate) district that is under VRA control. What this means is that, as a White person, my vote does not count or matter, as it is drawn explicitly for Black persons, and only a Black (Ultraleft) Democrat may be elected from my district.
For you to suggest I cede the right granted to me in the 17th (which, btw, along with the Governor’s race are the only 3 offices I have any real say in in my state) is repugnant and elitist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.