I don’t think repealing the 17th Amendment would necessarily return to federalism. Two problems jump out: first, corruption of state legislatures could be a huge issue - one of the reasons the 17th amendment passed in the first instance is that there were a number of scandals in which people essentially bought Senate seats by bribing legislators. Second, there is a risk (also present before the 17th amendment passed initially) that state elections would become little more than proxies for the Senate election.
no corruption in the current system - nope, not even a smidgen
One thing that repealing the 17th could do is end the assumption/assertion of Senators being federal employees. (Remember Murtha and how the courts protected him from slander and defamation charges w/ that argument?)
Glenn Beck pointed out that a different corruption, on a larger scale, takes place now - he mentioned Chris Dodd - we rec’d nearly all his re-election money from OUTSIDE of CT - and what he didn’t mention, it came from corrupt crony-capitalist groups like Fannie Mae and US Mortgage Lenders Assoc.
At very least, if Senators are chosen by state legislatures, the average citizen is closer to that representative and has more ability to influence. More local government at least means the ability to understand and influence local government.
That is a fair response. Perhaps a compromise will do it. 1 senator elected by popular vote and 1 senator elected by the legislature. FWIW.
In general I agree with you. I would not want to turn over selection of our Senators to the California Legislature. At least by direct vote we have a slight chance of throwing out the likes of Feinstein and Boxer.
The question isn’t Were there problems before the passage of the 17th Amendment? The issue is Did passage of the 17th Amendment make things better or worse?
Here’s a hint about whether REPEAL of the 17th Amendment would improve the U.S. Senate: Thirty states have Republican legislatures.
Both good points. Some have argued that the corruption of state legislators under the old system was exaggerated by reformers and the press, but bribery was a sensitive issue that caused public outrage that went beyond the current disapproval of campaign financing. Indirect elections often meant very direct payouts to legislators, in contrast to more indirect uses of money under the current system of direct election.
The old system was associated with the partiless republic that the Founders envisaged. They thought state legislators (and the electoral college) would automatically choose the most distinguished men in the state for the federal Senate. They didn't forsee that the contest -- both for the Senate and for President -- would be between organized party machines that might not leave much room for legislators' discretion.
Under the older system, state legislators could guarantee a senate seat to someone like Webster or Clay or Calhoun. A great man might become vice president or cabinet secretary or ambassador and find himself back in the Senate when a seat became open again in his home state. The Founders would have liked that. We might think it crony politics and the elite looking after itself. Once party politics and an industrialized national economy got under way, that option disappeared, and senatorial elections became contests between parties, not searches for the person state legislators might regard as most qualified.
As the government and the party system developed the more ambitious politicians gravitated to Washington. Those who stayed in the state legislators were more than willing to play a secondary rule to the feds, especially after the income tax amendment greatly increased federal revenues. At this point, I don't see state legislators fighting to take back power -- especially if it involves greater responsibility.
The two reasons Hamilton gave for indirect election were that it allowed for the selection of more distinguished men than than direct election and that it would bind the states closer to the federal government. The other Founders may well have felt very differently, but Hamilton wanted state legislators to choose the senators to decrease the independent power of the states, rather than to increase it, if what I've read is correct.
Thank you as I am sick of posting this point ad nauseum.
That being said close your eyes and try to picture what the government would look like if only property owners were allowed to vote. Sad but true.
As if that doesn't happen since the repeal of the 17th.
Not a very convincing argument.
one of the reasons the 17th amendment passed in the first instance is that there were a number of scandals in which people essentially bought Senate seats by bribing legislators. Second, there is a risk (also present before the 17th amendment passed initially) that state elections would become little more than proxies for the Senate election.
I believe the corruption argument was a progressive idea that too many states bought into without sufficient evidence or research into the long term consequences. The best example I can put forward would be like the US reacting to the so called war on women, by killing off the Republican’s instead of the party that started the war. Look at how fast the seventeenth went from idea to ratification, and now we are reaping the whirlwind.
The second issue I do not see as a problem as long as the Senator’s are doing their job of representing the State instead of glorified Representatives of the people. The House of Representatives does that job just fine. Prior to the ratification of the seventeenth, the states could do what they wanted with it’s senators ie not send one or two, or recall them for failure on the job, or whatever.
It also needs to be recognized that the original move for the seventeenth failed to change the elected term to correspond to the Constitution. Representatives of the people serve a two year term not a six year term. Representatives of the State, serve a six year term, and that in my opinion makes the entire seventeenth unconstitutional.
"one of the reasons the 17th amendment passed in the first instance is that there were a number of scandals in which people essentially bought Senate seats by bribing legislators."
This is true, but the corruption in DC far outweighs the corruption in two or three states.
Repeal both the 16th and the 17th amendments as soon as possible. Our economy and political systems might work properly then.
5.56mm