Posted on 12/18/2022 6:06:58 AM PST by Jacquerie
Progressives Blow Up the Framers’ Constitution.
There is no correlation between majoritarian rule and free government. Our Framers wisely limited the democratic element to just one half of one of the three branches of government. The House of Representatives satisfies the Founders self-evident truth that just governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed.
The previous squibs in this series illustrated two recurring themes surrounding the senate debates at the 1787 federal convention. First, the senate should counter the democratic excesses of the people in the house. In Madison’s words, the senate must be structured to reflect “more coolness” of decision and to “render (the houses of the legislature) by different modes of election, and different principles of action, as little connected with each other, as the nature of their common functions, and their common dependence on the society will admit.” Second, the senate should serve as a check on the inexorable impulse of every government to accretion of power. Federalism, the vertical division of powers, was to the states as the horizontal separation of powers was to the three great departments: an assurance of non-encroachment. The Framers’ system of indirect election promoted the harmonization of state interests in national issues and congressional handling of them.
In opposition to the Framers, late 19th century progressives promoted a new purpose and a new foundation for the senate. Rather than block the will of the people, the new senate should facilitate their will. To facilitate their will, it follows that senators must, like representatives, stand for popular election. Indeed. In 1891, Senator David Turpie (D-IN), said that direct election, “would serve the needs, wants, aims, and aspirations of the masses of men in our communities to be more faithfully reflected, more clearly imaged forth in the laws of the country and administration.”
Self-interest led the house to support the 17th Amendment (17A). Popularly elected senators represented the same constituency (albeit more numerous) as popularly elected representatives. Through their senators, pre-17A states often did their duty and blocked populist proposals from the house. Without the influence of state legislatures, the house stood to gain power in congress.
Few voices advised caution, that despite the progressives’ propaganda regarding corruption, the senate still served its Constitutional and proper purpose, to temper and cool wild proposals from the house, protect the states from federal encroachment, and provide wise counsel and circumspection of the president’s nominees and proposed treaties.
In an 1893 address, senator George Hoar (R-MA) itemized ten reasons to reject a resolution from the house to amend the Constitution. Among them:
• Direct elections are susceptible to vote fraud, fraudulent naturalization, fraudulent residences, forged returns, intimidation, and mob violence.
• Compared to corruption in legislative elections, expect far worse in party conventions.
• Partisanship, rather than the interests of the states, will determine popular elections.
• Once the Constitution provided for direct election of senators, expect similar movements to elect the President.
• The senate wasn’t isolated from the people. Over its hundred-year history, it initiated many important and beneficial legislative acts.
One senator wrote, “it may seem incredible that what seemed to the Framers the obvious and crucial anti-centralizing function of indirect election should pass almost unnoticed.”
In 1911, former Secretary of War, and of State, senator Elihu Root, delivered an eloquent and thoughtful defense of indirect election. Our Constitution sought to “insure domestic tranquility.” Stability in government, said Root, “was a matter of vital concern.” First, he encouraged simple adjustments to the 1866 law that caused electoral deadlocks in state legislatures. Expect destruction of state sovereignty if the nation abandons indirect elections: “Let me tell the gentlemen who are solicitous for the preservation of the sovereignty of their states that there is but one way in which they can preserve that sovereignty, and that is by repudiating absolutely and forever the fundamental doctrine on which this resolution proceeds.”
Moreover, the 17A kicked in the teeth of current and future state legislators. Senator Root warned the 17A would rob them of “power, dignity, (and) consequence” and lead to less capable and trustworthy men. You can never develop competent and trusted bodies of public servants by expressing distrust of them, by taking away their power. Once state legislatures are perceived as untrustworthy, “the tide that now sets toward the federal government will swell in volume and power.” With state legislatures removed from the process, “the time will come when the government of the United States will be driven to the exercise of more arbitrary and unconsidered power, will be driven to greater concentration, will be driven to extend its functions into the internal affairs of the states.”
In the next squib to this series, we’ll look at answers to the questions:
• What was the 17th Amendment supposed to do?
• Did the 17th Amendment do what it was supposed to do?
• What hath the 17th Amendment wrought?
Article V ping!
When secession from the union finally becomes a reality, developing a new constitution will simply be eliminating some old amendments.
A piece of cake…a walk through the park! If things get that far, there’s going to be much more work to do than reshuffling the Constitution and the Amendments. Who will be around to do the rejiggering?
The 17th Amendment is like a Cancer on the life of this system of checks and balances. Now all power in governments in the USA rests with those powerful enough to buy Congress.
For example,
1. All laws have to be approved by both Houses of Congress.
2. The January 6th quadrennial process has Congress as the final referee.
3. All impeachments/removals happen through Congress.
4. All executive/judiciary appointments no longer have the State legislatures being able to apply strong indirect advice/consent.
5. All new amendments have to be approved by both Houses of Congress.
6. Any other Article V process has to be approved every step of the way by both Houses of Congress.
As a result of not having strong check/balance on federal power by the State Legislatures we have seen the slow growth of kleptocracy corruption in the USA. It’s like a cancer. I’m not sure if it can be easily fixed.
One good thing that came as a result of the 17th Amendment was the end of Jim Crow laws. No doubt about it that the racism of the Democrats in many States was intense and despicable where they ruled with one party control. However, in place of good fixes of corruptions like that at the State level we now have a much even larger infestation of corruption and incompetence at the federal level.
“Few voices advised caution, ....the senate still served its Constitutional and proper purpose, [1] to temper and cool wild proposals from the house, [2] protect the states from federal encroachment, and [3] provide wise counsel and circumspection of the president’s nominees and proposed treaties.”
All 3 things have come to pass. In terms of “1”, this seems to have accelerated with the ascendancy of Schumer to leadership. He was in the House before being elected to the Senate in 1998. He still speaks and acts more like a leftist, impulsive, overly emotional House member, and not what has now become the mythical, thoughtful, deliberating Senator.
But the quotation above begs the question why there were only a few voices back then? What were the political and cultural currents flowing through the country that made for such a weak resistance? Why did enough states ratify the 17A beyond giving a simple conclusion that states saw it as “beneficial”? Perhaps it will be explained in the other articles.
(BTW - Is there a recommended, classic, conservative political viewpoint on the history of the 17th Amendment?)
While I would be interested in why the end of Jim Crow is linked to the 17A. My theory is that happened because of the combination the impact of World War 2 on US society and culture, the rise of electronic media and entertainment, Brown v Board of Education, and the Voting Rights Act.
Once it became a popular election, the only voters that mattered were the big cities. The state as a whole ceased to have representative in the upper house. And so it was that state's rights/powers were whittled away by the Beast of the Potomac.
<>Is there a recommended, classic, conservative political viewpoint on the history of the 17th Amendment?<>
1. Click the link to this article. At the bottom are my sources.
2. At ArticleVBlog.com, search “A Senate of the States.”
You’ll find a day-by-day history at the Federal Convention of the Senate. Around twenty articles.
The reasons I remember reading about as to why the 17th Amendment were:
1. The state legislators weren’t to be trusted because they were bribed by railroad execs. Likely true but why wouldn’t the railroads just now bribe the senators? Seems post-17th Amendment the railroads get off cheap - fewer bribes!
2. The state legislators were often slow in appointing senators when there was a vacancy. This I believe!
In both cases it seems it was more a people not holding the state legislators’ feet to the fire then a real structural governing problem.
Whatever the reason it upset the balance of federal-state-people power. The Founding Fathers had it right, it needs to be repeale!
You are right. Repeal the 17th.
Right. So repeal the 17th and bring it back if needed.
17 was the Biggest Power Grab. Ever !
Following disclosures of large technology platforms, in collusion with treasonous rogue government groups, taking part in illegally removing a duly elected US President, President Trump had this to say on Truth Social:
Former US Sen. Rick Santorum Joins Convention of States Project as Senior Advisor:
https://conventionofstates.com/news/breaking-sen-rick-santorum-joins-convention-of-states-project-as-senior-advisor
Enormous changes in technology are allowing a Color Revolution (note the name Norm Eisen) to occur on American soil, putting the Nation in peril.
These changes in technology used by enemies of the United States to overthrow its government in a Coup d'Etat of its 45th President and to rig results of elected offices, are now discernable.
Criminal application of current everyday technologies; computers, scanners, printers, together with easy entry (amatuer level hacking) of electronic election databases, has allowed "One Person, One Vote" to become "One Cheater, Ten Thousand Votes."
Should the American Republic survive its technological war within, the aftermath calls for a multi-year commission to investigate causes and for needed changes to be identified. These changes must accommodate the People’s demands via Article V to repeal existing Amendments, and possibly propose new Amendments, all purposed to strengthen the Republic and guard against attacks on its institutions and elections.
More discussion of need for repealing the 17th here:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4117108/posts?page=52#52
Eye-opening revelations of Stealth attacks using everyday technology and processes used in a takedown of the American Republic were brought to light by 1st Generation Polish-American Kristofer Jurski and are referenced here (study carefully):
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4106441/posts
Imagine if President Trump came to the same conclusions.
The next logical step would be for him to lead the states to an Article V COS.
Here is one... I'm searching for others that I know I read before.
The Seventeenth Amendment and the Death of Federalism
-PJ
“Senators and Special Interests: A Public Choice Analysis of the Seventeenth Amendment,” Oregon Law Review (1994) (scroll down to the text).
-PJ
Putting the election of Senators up to popular vote was helpful in being able to get some of the nefarious activities out of the smoky rooms and into the open. Thus, in the northern states, a groundswell of support for overthrowing Jim Crow era laws was possible more quickly. But, yes compared to the impact of WW2 and electronic media/entertainment it didn’t make as much difference. I don’t know if we would’ve gotten Brown and VRA as fast without the 17th Amendment.
What the 17A should’ve done at the very least was make it possible for State Legislatures, in accordance to State Law, to terminate early the term of a Senator who isn’t representing their States, and to appoint another to serve out the remainder of their term.
What we’ve ended up with on the 17A now is proving to be like a horrific cancer that’s going to destroy the Constitutional Republic of 1789 unless something is done to firmly restore having in place some firm check/balance on federal power. In the meantime the march towards totalitarianism keeps making steady progress.
https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/350/
Ulysses at the Mast:
Democracy, Federalism,
and the Sirens’ Song of the Seventeenth Amendment
-
(click the ‘download’ button if you want to read the entire 74 page pdf file)
-
Excerpt:
Starting at page 40 of the pdf file, (marked as page 538)
III. B. Motivation for the Seventeenth Amendment
1. The Corruption of State Legislatures
2. Deadlock and Delay in the Election of Senators.
3. Populist Sentiment.
-
Do you think 60 senators would ever propose to “undo” this?
The ONLY way to undo it is with an Article V Convention Of States.
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.