"It would exist in observable reality. The Senate would be appointed by the state."
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 House would represent the people. That IS a very real check and balance, not a fantasy, regardless if you agree or not."
The Senate is to check and balance the House, ideally.
"Your continuous claims to corruption of the Senate before the 17th amendment compared to today is completely erroneous and absurd."
Except that it happened, and often that was merely in how they managed to obtain election.
"It is hard to recall a worse den of thieves that have been directly elected to the Senate (or congress) then what we have now, and it certainly didn't exist prior to 1913."
Corruption then, corruption now. Go back to the Gilded Age and see how well regarded the Senate was.
"As to your horrible "situation" of Delaware not sending a delegation to the Senate do you really think the world is going to end if some state can't get it's act together enough to send members? It's their representation, it's up to them to send them or not. Regardless it rarely happened, although it is constantly held up as a shining example of why we "had" to get rid of state representation although it makes absolutely no sense at all."
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.
"Flight of fancy? The 17th amendment has altered the republic for the worse and it completely changed the concept of congress to something completely irrational and not in step with the rest of the constitution."
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.
"Do you really think you can rationalize that our nation is better off now than in 1913?"
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."
"Any speculation about who the states would or would not send to the senate is hypothetical, however, the republican party would have controlled the senate more often than it has historically,"
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.
"and it would be controlling it now based on pure numbers. Regardless your characterization of my intent is incorrect. While it would be nice to have a pure as driven snow, selfless Senate filled with genius statesmen, that isn't a rational desire. My intent is restore reason to the concept of congress by restoring representation to the states, and putting back in place a real check and balance to the ever increasing power of the federal government."
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.
"Any rational person with a knowledge of the constitution and intent of the founder wouldn't support the 17th amendment."
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.
"You are making wild speculation. You don't know enough about every state legislature to know who would and would be sent. That you think you do demonstrates your irrationality. Can I give names? Of course I can't as it's unknowable but if I wanted to simply makes some names up they would be just as plausible as yours."
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.
"Just like any member might not be sent back by the State legislature. The legislature didn't appoint Senetors for life after all...unlike the current incumbency we are seeing in the Senate now."
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.
"Certainly you aren't suggesting that prior to 1913 people held Senate office longer Senators after the 17th amendment."
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.
"That isn't historically accurate at all. Further gerrymandering applies just as much if not more to direct elections."
Well, that argument of yours just got obliterated.
"Pelosi is a member of the house that is elected the same way as Senators and is as dirty as anyone that has ever held office."
She's not elected statewide, but from an extremist one-party district in a heavily gerrymandered Dem state. She would obtain power in the exact manner that a CA Dem Senator would with repeal (you're actually making my point). Because California has not had a legislature made up of a GOP majority since Ronald Reagan was in his first term as Governor (roughly around 1967-69), that would've been the last time the GOP would've had any viable input. Indeed, you'd have Jerry Brown as the senior Senator today, ensconced in that body since he ran for it in 1982 hot off his failed two term disaster as Governor. The junior Senator would be none other than King Willie Brown, as a reward for his tenure as the dictatorial Speaker, stymieing the agendas of Govs. Deukmejian and Wilson. Boxer or Feinstein, well, they might take the next available opening, but let's face it, what would really be the difference ? Two screeching harpy moonbat females or two moonbat males ? Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Then again, with members of the legislature shameless running arms, Brown & Brown might be too sedate and "moderate" for that Stalinist hellhole.
"Reid has lied, bribed, taken kick backs, and overtly cheated at elections."
Of course, and he'd have also never have lost an election going back to 1974 when he first ran for the Senate. The Dem majority in the legislature would've sent him over ex-Gov. Paul Laxalt, a Conservative and the choice of the people, and that would've been that. You'd have gifted him 12 more years to wreak havoc nationwide. Even when the GOP has held narrow majorities in the State Senate, Reid has always managed to get the RINO contingent there to aid him, so no worries for him on the off chance they managed to try to oust him via a repeal.
"One can go on and on about the scum that fills congress and it makes the pre-17th amendment congress look like children that occasionally stole an extra cookie from the cookie jar."
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.
"Could NV directly elect a senator that isn't a Democrat? Sure. Will it? Hell no, and that is a very important point. If a state leans Democrat then it's representation can be Democrat."
The point being that the corrupted and gerrymandered legislature of Nevada has the people (the state) themselves telling them they will send a Republican. It works out better that way. Now if only something could be done about the crooked cretins of Carson City like the Stalinists of Sacramento...
"My desire isn't that anyone of any party not be able to elect or appoint who it wants. My point is that without the state having representation you might as well just have a house or representatives and call it a day."
And again, you equate legislature with the state. I, as I have said endlessly, do not.
"BS. It was "progressive" media like Hearst and Politicians like Roosevelt making a mountain over molehills that made the 17th amendment possible, it was a jaded perversion of our constitution, that fundamentally altered balance of power between the Fed and the States. Not to mention the direct contravention of article V of the Constitution."
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.
"Repealing the 17th amendment is good enough start."
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 ?
"The corruption then doesn't hold a candle to the corruption now, so as the 17th was a monumental failure let's get rid of it."
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.
Durus, DJ is corect that you can’t take the current legislature of a state as a proxy for the state itself. Remember how North Carolina elected Jesse Helms to the Senate in 1972 and reelected him in 1978, 1984, 1990 and 1996? Well, had Senate elections in NC been held in the state legislature, instead of allowing the citizens of NC to vote, Helms never would have come close to election, as the NC state legislature was dominated by the Democrats from the 1870s until 2011 (except for a brief interregnum after the 1894 elections in which a coalition of Republicans and Populists controlled the legislature), so NC would have continued to send liberal Democrats to the Senate to this day. Thanks to the 17th Amendment, the people of North Carolina, and not the Democrat politicians in the state legislature, have been able to decide who should represent the state in the U.S. Senate, and all Americans benefited from having the great Jesse Helms as the conservative lion of the Senate. With no 17th Anendment, Helms would have had to remain as a broadcaster for the Tobacco Radio Network instead of representing the people of his state in the U.S. Senate.
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.