Replies

My apologies, the day's events didn't follow the schedule I anticipated, so I haven't been able to get back to this discussion until now. Here is the response I promised you, however.

Re: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~govt/docs/Schiller.PDF the paper by Wendy Schiller of Brown University you listed in post 57, and your subsequent response to me in post 58:

I suggest that you at least take the time to look at the document I've offered for your perusal. It is edifying, especially for those of you who hew to this ridiculous-not to mention, unverifiable-conviction that repealing the 17th Amendment is some sort of panacea that will return the United States to its Constitutional roots.

First, I did look through the document, briefly this morning, and more thoroughly this evening. I thought it was quite impressive, and that Ms. Schiller did a commendable job in support of her argument. The problem is that while her premise is certainly interesting, from an academic and historical perspective, it is not of primary importance or relevance to the problem at hand: how to rein in the various out-of-control entities comprising our government. The Senate is only one of many. I'll have more on this point shortly.

Second, while it is true that another poster in this discussion suggested that repealing the Seventeenth Amendment might be helpful, no one claimed that it would be "some sort of panacea that will return the United States to its Constitutional roots". Hyperbole such as this is unhelpful. I certainly made no such claim.

With these two points in mind, let's get to the crux of the matter. As I acknowledged, Ms. Schiller has produced an impressive and useful piece of academic research. However, the ostensible purpose of her study is only secondarily related to the problem and her results don't support or justify your hostility toward the idea of repealing the Seventeenth Amendment. One need only read the very first paragraph of the document to readily see that:

Abstract - Using a sample of senators from the 51st, 55th, 57th and 60th Congresses, this paper analyzes U.S. senators’ careers, from elections in state legislatures to legislative portfolios, to estimate the extent to which Senate careers were built on different components a century ago than they are today. The findings suggest that although the electoral dynamics in state legislatures’ selections of U.S. senators were very different than the electoral environment senators face today, Senate legislative behavior in the 19th century bears striking similarities to modern day Senate behavior. The indirect mode of election did not succeed in insulating senators from electoral pressures generated by constituent interests in their states.

The last statement in the paragraph above encapsulates the fallacy of your argument. The primary reason the Founding Fathers had for having US Senators selected by the state legislatures was to have the Senate represent the States (state governments), not the People, in the US Congress. They provided the House of Representatives to represent the populace. The intent was to limit the power of the federal government by empowering the states. It was an effort to maximize, through institutional structure, the benefits of decentralization of power and the efficacy of the checks and balances built into the Constitution.

Now the Founders never claimed it was a perfect system, and neither do I. There is no question that it did not succeed completely "in insulating senators from electoral pressures generated by constituent interests in their states". They never expected it to; they just did their best to minimize it. However, to try to address the problem of "constituent pressure" on senators through the state legislatures by opening them up to pressure via direct election is illogical and disingenuous. The "pressure" is still there either way, the only change is you destroy the power of the state governments (but then that was the intent).

The Founding Fathers knew that the fallibility of human nature was a constant, beyond their ability to change. Flawed men would always find ways to insinuate their corrupt nature and influence into the institutions of government. This truth did not change with the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment. In fact, it exacerbated the problem.

The Seventeenth Amendment did not succeed "in insulating senators from electoral pressures generated by constituent interests in their states", it increased them. Moreover, it opened them up to pressure from a whole new range of interests from outside their states, such as multinational corporations and advocacy groups like Moveon.org, or George Soros' various front organizations, etc.. Frequently these groups have interests and goals which contradict the desires or best interests of a Senator's constituents, but the money they provide for his campaigns enables him/her to overcome the difficulties this causes and continue, with the power of massive media, to stay in office. In some cases, Senators become "national figures", with such a broad base of media, national and international support they effectively independent agents, e.g. Hillary Clinton.

This has run longer than I intended, so I'll wrap it up quickly. Human nature did not change with the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment, and it did not solve the problems its proponents professed as their intent. In fact, their professed reasons for it were lies. What it did accomplish was the destruction of the influence of the state governments to restrain the centralization and consolidation of power in the federal government. That was its purpose.

Repealing it is not a "panacea", but it's a good start. Even if it can't be done right away, raising the argument and discussing the idea is good because it helps re-educate a citizenry who have forgotten the history and the principles upon which the country is founded.

Of course there are other issues which merit a higher priority, as you mentioned in your post, such as "lobbying for the modification or eradication of the income tax, clamoring for the repeal of the disastrous congressional expansions to Medicare-and every other "entitlement" program under the Sun-and campaigning for the imposition of firm, low numerical quotas on the thousands of tax-eaters that are given carte blanche to enter this country on an annual basis".

I agree with you, these are all necessary efforts. I have personally given away a dozen of "The Fair Tax" books. However, public discussion of the merits and rationale of repealing the Seventeenth Amendment also deserves a place in that list, even if not necessarily at the top, and your derision and disdain for those who wish to do so is misplaced and unworthy.