Posted on 01/18/2005 4:05:40 PM PST by KC Burke
any new thoughts?
Alan Keyes's Daffy Idea to Repeal the 17th Amendment
By Lewis Gould Mr. Gould, professor emeritus at the University of Texas at Austin, is writing a history of the Senate in the twentieth century.
Alan Keyes, the Republican senatorial candidate in Illinois, has now joined Senator Zell Miller of Georgia and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in calling for repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution, the one that provides for the direct election of United States senators. Senator Miller, who has introduced his own amendment to repeal the Seventeenth, contends that the direct election of senators “was the death of the careful balance between state and federal governments.” Once the Senate was the province of members “who thoughtfully make up their own minds, as they did during the Senate’s greatest era of Clay, Webster, and Calhoun.” Now senators, in Miller’s view, “are mere cat’s paws for the special interests.” Miller favors returning the right to elect senators to the state legislatures who had that job until the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913. Keyes agrees since it seems likely that the Illinois electorate is not going to prove receptive to his bid for that state’s open Senate seat. Before this flawed idea gets any traction, it would be well to recall the historical circumstances that led to the adoption of the direct election amendment in the first place.
Why did Americans in the Progressive Era endorse this change in the nation’s fundamental law? Put aside the senatorial giants that Miller mentions--- John C. Calhoun, Daniel Webster, and Henry Clay. Consider three lesser known figures in the history of the upper house—J. Edward Addicks, William A. Clark, and William Lorimer. Few history books devote more than a line or two to these three obscure gentlemen, but they were important players in the reason why the Seventeenth Amendment came into being.
By 1900 complaints about the way that United States senators were elected filled the press of the day. “The legislative system of electing Senators has broken down,” wrote a commentator in the Arena in 1905. Critics cited the senators who had recently been indicted and convicted of crimes, Joseph R. Burton of Kansas and John Mitchell of Oregon. Other senators such as Chauncey Depew of New York had been found to be on the payroll of corporations. There was in the Senate the general presence, as the Nation put it, of “those whose corruption or surrender to corporate interests has too long stained the reputation of a great legislative body.” Politicians associated with the Progressive Movement, such as William E. Borah of Idaho and Joseph L. Bristow of Kansas, argued that direct election represented a forward step toward cleaner politics when corruptible state legislatures gave way to the people.
Now to those three obscure men. William A. Clark was a wealthy silver miner from Montana whom the legislature in that state sent to the Senate in 1899. Subsequent investigation determined that he had spent more than $140,000 of his money bribing lawmakers in the legislature. After resigning his seat in early 1900, he was returned to the Senate by the Montana legislature under less sordid conditions. J. Edward Addicks was a millionaire from Pennsylvania who tried to buy himself a Senate seat from Delaware in the 1890s and early 1900s. Spreading his cash around, he put the state into a political turmoil that left it without one of its senators for several years. Finally, Senator William Lorimer received a majority of the votes from the Illinois legislature in 1909. Later revelations disclosed that bribery of some legislators had been a key part of Lorimer’s victory. The senator himself was not involved with the illegal acts, but the specter of “Lorimerism” convinced many citizens that legislatures were not the proper vehicles for selecting United States senators. In 1912 Lorimer was expelled from the Senate. By then the direct election of senators had become a constitutional amendment and was on its way to ratification.
The Seventeenth Amendment did not bring the new political morality to the Senate that its advocates had forecast. Many problems of campaign finance, corrupted elections, and the power of special interests remain to plague the Senate chamber. But a resolution of those issues will not occur by returning to a fancied golden age of senatorial excellence before the Seventeenth Amendment came on the scene. State legislatures are not the answer to improving the Senate any more than they were in 1900. Such a reversion might have the effect of reducing campaign expenses since the cost of influencing several dozen state lawmakers would be well below the current outlay for running a statewide election. Yet it is laughable, in light of the historical experience of a century ago, to suggest that a return to a system so susceptible to corruption, log-rolling, and the flouting of public opinion would be any kind of improvement over the present state of affairs. The contemporary problems of the Senate need to be addressed. Relying on the undemocratic methods that came before the Seventeenth Amendment provides no way to embark on the salutary process of reforming the Senate.
Over the years, a number of legal scholars have called for the repeal of the 17th amendment. An excellent summary of their arguments appears in Ralph Rossum's book, Federalism, the Supreme Court and the Seventeenth Amendment. They should at least get a hearing before Zell Miller departs the Senate at the end of this year.I will have to get this book, I guess.
and
http://www.liberty-ca.org/articles/macmullin_17th.htm
The Seventeenth Ammendment was an extremely serious strategic blunder--the worst Ammendment ever to have been adopted. It's worse than Prohibition, and worse than the Sixteenth Ammendment (whose effect was simply to permit the income tax to be levied agsinst rents, royalties, dividends and interest.)
Repealing it will be extremely difficult, however. The first problem will be general apathy and ignorance. Too many people either won't care, or won't bother to learn enough about the issue to have a rational opinion, one way or the other. In such a situation, the status quo always has a nearly insurmountable strategic advantage.
The second problem is those who elevate "democracy" to a religion, and don't respect its limitations, nor understand the superiority of a Constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, division of power, and intentional limitations on the power of the majority.
Any movement that can overcome both of these obstacles can accomplish far more than simply repealing the Seventeenth Ammendment.
My purpose in pointing these things out is not to discourage, but rather to inject sobering realities into the discussion. Success can only come as a consequence of recognizing the full scope and nature of the obstacles, and finding ways to overcome them.
One key fact that must be recognized is this: most people will never care, one way or the other, and make decisions based on emotion, not rational argument. Ultimately, the battle will be won by appealing to the heart, not the mind.
BTTT
Thus, the democratic body is least able to be principled and isolated from media pressure.
The jobs of Senators have devolved to Pork Delivery to placate "constituents", most other actions generally being made to amass and consolidate power and money for themselves and their Party. If I did the amount of "work" that Senators do, I would have been fired long ago.
Thank you. Bookmarked for quiet study at the weekend.
You and I both understand why it would be better were the Senate more isolated from media pressures. Joe 6-pack does not. How do we get Joe to udnerstand?
Mr. Smith does not exist, and even if he did, he sure ain't in Washington.
FMCDH(BITS)
Amendments to the Constitution are, if adopted, inherently constitutional. Arguing that a ratified amendment to the Constitution is somehow unconstitutional is silly.
Knowing that their representational decisions on the state level would directly affect who sits in the U.S. Senate could have a galvanizing effect on state politics..
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
There is such a thing as an unconstitutional amendment.
Tom Delay supports the repeal of the 17th? EXCELLENT! Glad to hear it...now only if more Members of Congress would join in. I'm pert near sure that the very honorable Representative RON PAUL (R-TX) supports it too, being the Constitutionist that he is.
I don't understand how the 17th Amendment could have been ratified in the first place--after all, as we all know, Amendments must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures after winning a 2/3 majority from ea house of Congress. The fact is that the legislatures who voted in favor of this Amendment flat-out voted to give up their representation in Congress!
I may be wrong, but it sounds outrageous to me that a state legislature would actually do that, & do so willingly...could you imagine the uproar that would happen if the people weren't allowed to vote for their representatives in the House? IMO, there would be major fighting in the streets if we lost our right to vote! How on earth could 3/4 of the state legislatures do this???
Hey, Bub, I didn't make that arguement, I merely cited it in summing up various stances that have been taken in opposition.
You know our Supreme Court. If the Yale Law School starts having nightly fantisies about something, poof, a parnumbra appears and the Court reverses God Knows What.
It took 40 years after the appearance of clear corruption in the previous process for the Amendment (which was presented to the public as an attempt at reform corruption) to come about. Perhaps this is year seven in a new forty. I'll keep bringing it up as I think the 17th killed more than it cured.
You wrote it. You own it.
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.