Posted on 11/15/2015 9:37:56 AM PST by YankeeinOkieville
Mark Levin is one of the smartest scholars on the United States Constitution and I trust his opinion. Having said that,every once in a while he will indicate that the 17th is not his favorite amendment to our U.S. Constitution and this got me to thinking about how our country has been affected by this one - both good and bad.
While there are a number of seemingly entrenched Senators we could do with changing, due at least in part to name recognition by LIVs and misleading TV ads, I'm not at all sure state legislatures could or would do a better job of selecting replacements. Two examples that spring to mind are Ted Cruz and Dr. Tom Coburn. I highly doubt that either man would've been U.S. Senators if it were left up to the elected officials in their respective states. Both were nominated and elected through strong grass roots uprisings of the people. Both have, in my opinion, more than proven to be up the the challenge.
OTOH, would we have been saddled with as many Kennedys? Do you think the various states would impose term limits? Did any?
I dare say very few of us are students of history to the degree that we know what the mood of the country was in 1913. Perhaps Mark is. I am curious to hear opinions of my fellow Freepers on whether you think this was a good idea or bad idea and how you think the country might be different if Senators were still appointed by and answerable to the several states.
As am I. I cannot see the governing body of Texas (Republican as it is) selecting Ted Cruz to represent the state.
While I agree that the 17th completely changed the Founders’ idea that the Senate represented the states (that’s why treaties are ratified by only the Senate) as I understand it, in 1913 it was believed that the rich and powerful within each state could easily buy the votes of then low-paid state legislators. The people of the time could not imagine that a majority of voters in a state could be bought off or influenced by big money to vote for a particular Senator. This was of course before radio and television ads would flood people’s homes for months before an election—paid for of course by big money.
Right now there would be about 60+ republican senators in the Senate as that many states are Republican controlled.
They were meant to be representatives of states’ interests against federal encroachment on those interests. The 17th amendment eviscerated states rights, oddly enough with the states’ approval!
I agree wholeheartedly with your observations. That leads to the wondering if Ted would’ve ran - or been drafted to run - for Representative from the great state of Texas.
I wonder also, prior to the 17th, how many Representatives went on to run for President and if any won. (I know I could look it up for myself, but I’m betting with the brain trust we have here, I may not have to ;-) )
The other issue is campaign financing. Riding ourselves of the 17th would rid us of expensive campaigns. It would be also make it much more difficult for Senators to accumulate massive amounts of wealth off of the campaign finance system.
The other issue is campaign financing. Riding ourselves of the 17th would rid us of expensive campaigns. It would be also make it much more difficult for Senators to accumulate massive amounts of wealth off of the campaign finance system.
However, if the 17th Amendment hadn't been passed then it might not be the case right now.
If the voters of a state knew that whoever controlled the state houses would determine who their senators were, then they might vote differently. Just like we conservatives are cajoled into voting for inferior Republican candidates just so we can control who ends up in the Supreme Court, Democrats would be cajoled into supporting undesirable candidates to make sure that the state's Senators were Democrat.
Also, the real problem is not who chooses the Senators. The real problem is that the Feds are the only branch of government that can run deficits indefinitely. Over time our state governments have willingly ceded powers over to the Fed because they can't afford to pay for all the goodies their constituencies beg for. The states let the feds write the checks and then follow the mandates set by the feds.
There is some grumbling, but no real change.
Remember it was individuals that fought for Bundy's rights not the state of Nevada.
Wasn't it the state political machine in Mississippi that gave it back to Cochran when the people tried to get rid of him? That would seem a vote for the 17th.
Hopefully, if the good people of the Magnolia State paid attention to who all was involved in this unscrupulous stunt and do a little house cleaning of their own.
CCg nails it. The intent of a 2 house congress is that the several States have representation. This is what a federal constitutional republic is all about. 17A effectively DESTROYED the Republic.
About 4 years ago I was in a Big Lots and saw $3 book by Larry Sabado that proposed modifications to the U.S. Constitution. I figured I would be open-minded and see what Larry was proposing... and when I got to the part where he proposed that Article 1, Section 3 be modified to give more populous states more seats in the Senate, with senators being elected by popular vote, I closed the book and heaved it across the room at the wall.
Imbecile. ZERO grasp upon the original intent of the Senate. ZERO grasp of how critically important the decentralization of power is to a federal republic.
Voters were once able to directly influence how their statehouse acted and who it might send to Washington D.C. It put the power directly in the voting district, where if a state representative refused the will of the people that elected him, that representative was, minimally, removed from office. At worst, his home could be burned to the ground by an angry mob as they found the nearest tree to hang him from by the neck with a rope.
That is how it “should be”, IMHO.
Republican =/= conservative. If it were up to the state of Oklahoma, we may have had a Republican senator selected in 2004 but it would've been Kirk Humphries instead of the conservative Dr. Coburn.
ping
Amendment 17 changed the Senate into a more-exclusive, more-expensive version of the House.
I am in favor of repealing the 17th amendment.
Yeah, let the socialist state bosses of pork and regulations choose the senators. They’ll finish crushing what little remains of the true private sector.
The 17th amendment has made it much more probable that our elected Senators become influenced from movements out of their state.
Since the probability of repealing the 17th amendment is near zero, time spent even discussing the subject is a waste.
That is how it “should beâ€, IMHO.
Really hoping that is hyperbole.
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.