Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BikerNYC
Originally the electorate influenced the U.S. Senate through their legislators whom they elected. Each state could set their own term lengths and other electoral particulars for that. The legislators were presumed to represent the state's interests as a whole as that is what they were elected to do. They appointed a U.S. Senator to represent the state's interests in the Federal Congress.

The electorate had their own interests more closely represented, by district, apportioned by population, through their Congressmen. That is why Congressmen have shorter terms than Senators so that the electorate could more rapidly address their ever changing wishes in Congress. Senators were presumed to be chosen for their abilities by a more stable and better informed body than the electorate, the state's legislature. That is what they were hired to do by the electorate. Manage the interests of the state.

Now Senators are hired by the electorate, two per state, no apportioning, and go off to D.C. for six years where they entrench themselves in a self-protecting bureaucracy where they are unanswerable to state officials by censure or recall and nearly unanswerable to the electorate having found an unlimited trough of re-election funds and a good-old-boy re-election support network.

The Senate was to be a check on the House. The House, working directly for the people, would craft laws and treaties and bills. The Senate (which could also do those things) would represent the individual state's interests. The Senate, being longer tenured and more narrowly chosen, was to be the august tempering body that kept the more mercurial, temporal and widely dispersed interests of the House in check.

The state loses power to the feds because they must now grovel at a Congress's feet for authority and money. (One is usually tied to the other it seems.) So now both Senators and Congressmen are elected by popular vote which is fickle, being relatively easily manipulated in comparison to state officials, and self interested rather than interested in the state's sovereignty and welfare.

The 17th Amendment was a bill of goods sold to the people with the basic slogan of the Dems after election 2000; "the people are being disenfranchised." It was a way for the feds to consolidate more power and the people who pushed for it knew that. They were well aware of the maxim of pure democracies, to paraphrase; "once the people find that they can vote themselves largesse from the government they will do so until it is bankrupt." For wannabe petty tyrants that's a great thing. The more instability there is the more power they can assume. It was a major and necessary step towards socialism and the eventual dictatorship that we will have.

Next step: Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations.

Next step: FDR and Supreme Court supremacy.

16 posted on 08/11/2004 7:47:17 AM PDT by TigersEye (Intellectuals only exist if you think they do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: TigersEye
Senators were presumed to be chosen for their abilities by a more stable and better informed body than the electorate, the state's legislature.

That is the weakness of the entire argument. More stable and better informed? Give me a break. State elected officials are just as entrenched in the "self-protecting bureaucracy" of state government.

Prior to the 17th Amendment, just under 17% (one-half of one-third) of the federal government was directly elected by the electorate. Now 33% is so elected. I don't think that is a bad thing.
18 posted on 08/11/2004 7:53:51 AM PDT by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: TigersEye
The Senate was to be a check on the House. The House, working directly for the people, would craft laws and treaties and bills. The Senate (which could also do those things) would represent the individual state's interests. The Senate, being longer tenured and more narrowly chosen, was to be the august tempering body that kept the more mercurial, temporal and widely dispersed interests of the House in check.

And don't forget about the Senate's advise and consent responsibilities. The Senate is responsible for confirming Executive appointments.

-PJ

51 posted on 08/12/2004 9:56:36 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson