Think Political Parties Are Destroying America? Thank the 17th Amendment! by Todd Huston

The New Media Journal ^ | 5 june 2007 | Todd Huston

[Lurker]

And shortly thereafter Jackson was impeached for corruption.

There's a shock.

L

[Publius]

There are two books I strongly recommend to understand the levels of complexity in the arguments made in this article and by others.

The first is Decision in Philadelphia by the Colliers, a father-and-son team of historians. They avoid strict chronology and cover the convention by "thread". On any given day, several threads were discussed, and by following the discussion, deals and resolution of individual threads, one can see how the Convention progressed and came to the decisions it made.

The second is States' Rights and the Union by Forrest McDonald. Prof. McDonald is a professor of history at the University of Alabama, a Hamiltonian conservative and a man with a magnificent prose style. All his books are worth reading, but especially this one.

Once you have read these, a lot of things suddenly become clearer.

[Publius]

Andrew Jackson was never impeached for anything. I have no idea of whom you might be thinking unless it's Andrew Johnson, impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act.

Jackson was censured by Congress during his adminstration, but in the final days of his presidency that censure was stricken from the record.

Jackson's amendment proposals were based on the idea that the country had morphed from the republic of 1787 to a broad-based democracy. One of Jackson's proposals was ratified in 1913 (the subject of this article), and another -- the abolition of the Electoral College -- will be a slam-dunk the next time a presidential election is thrown into the House of Representatives, or we repeat the election of 2000.

[nickcarraway]

That is possible, but the situation has changed. If we went back to this system, there would be many states with two Democrat Senators, but possibly none with two GOP Senators. (Perhaps a few, it would be surprising to see as many as five)

[sand88]

Thank you for the book recommendations. They sound quite interesting. I will plan to read them.

[Lurker]

I have no idea of whom you might be thinking unless it's Andrew Johnson, impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act.

My mistake.

Jackson's amendment proposals were based on the idea that the country had morphed from the republic of 1787 to a broad-based democracy

He was only off by a couple of hundred years. God help us all.

-- the abolition of the Electoral College -- will be a slam-dunk the next time a presidential election is thrown into the House of Representatives,

I don't think it'll take that long.

L

[pjd]

Just because they are bad now, doesn't mean they couldn't be worse. Do you honestly believe that state legislators would ever pick someone more conservative than the pub;lic? Impossible.

It's not a question of being Conservatism. Before the 17th amendment, a Senator's constituency was his state legislature and there was incentive to keep power in the states. But now that Senators are elected the same as Representatives, they are divorced from the needs of the state. To get re-elected, they do what Reps do. They promise freebies to the people. To do that they have a vested interest in bringing more power going to the Federal government so that they have more candy to give away.

That's the problem. Senators used to stand against expansion of the Central Government. Now they are cheerleaders for it.

[Political Junkie Too]

Yes, Article V conventions called by the States.

Also, see this recent thread on FR: “A Convention for Proposing Amendments...as Part of this Constitution”

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

Another aspect of this problem is the amount of campaign donations that come from outside any particular state to fund a Senate run. Lieberman’s unrepresentative opponent was heavily funded by forces well outside the state instead of by the citizens who would actually elect him to office. This has the effect of driving the costs of running for office ever higher in key races.

That's why the biggest impact of repealing the 17th amendment is campaign finance reform. If you eliminate 33 of the most expensive elections that occur every two years, you eliminate the need to finance them, and in the process you dry up the money flow to the national parties in Washington.

-PJ

[K-oneTexas]

Thank McCain-Finegold. Personally there should be a ceiling on what amount can be spent by any candidate. All fundraising efforts should be done by the individual only, no money from anyone except individuals with the ceiling. All PAC's etc should be dissolved. Any monies left over in a 'war chest' and not used ... directly to the Treasury to pay the National Debt. And get that ludicrous $1 donation to the fund off my income tax return.

Other than that if a President is limited to 2 terms, it's only fair any Representative or Senator should be limited also ... 2 maybe 4 at max.

[tpaine]

The simplistic concept that the 14th applied the BOR to the states, [Article VI does that] allowing ~bad decisions~ by the USSC in regard to protecting our life, liberty or property, - is belied by the fact that States could use the 14th to compel the federal government to protect those same liberties.
- The fact that States are not doing so proves that BOTH fed & state gov't are ignoring our Constitution.

You claim:

The 14th Amendment also lead to a hyperexpansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

Could you explain your reasoning please? Congress derives no power over commerce from the 14th, that I can see.

>>Also, the 14th gave us anchor babies.

Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, - all persons born, - are citizens - of the States where they reside.
Thus, - States could refuse to acknowledge an illegal residency while giving birth. Such women & children could be deported from the State as non-citizens. If no other State or U.S. Territory admitted them as citizens, where could they go?

States and local governments have enormous powers under the US Constitution. That they don't use them is a political problem, not a constitutional one

[Political Junkie Too]

My point is simply that by eliminating senate elections, there won't be enough of a campaign finance need to support a national infrastructure. The 435 House elections every 2 years has such a small consituency per seat, and the presidential elections every 4 years being their own "animal," eliminating Senate elections effectively dries up the need for national campaign funding.

-PJ

[x]

The choice was either to allow the popular election of Senators, or to watch the Senate, an "undemocratic" body, lose power. For inevitably, a Senate still chosen by state legislatures would increasingly come to look illegitimate to voters.

I'm not sure that the Senate did look after the interest of states before the Amendment was passed. The growing national economy helped make the Senate more representative of economic interests than of state governments.

What changed most with the Amendment was that Senators, having won state elections, came to think of themselves as presidential timber. Before that, Senators didn't have to be popular or attractive vote-getters and hence were rarely considered as presidential candidates.

[K-oneTexas]

No, no ... I wasn’t really disagreeing. I also believe we need to have the States send the Senators to Congress. My comment was more my tirade against an idiocy I see in place today. I believe in term limits and enforce that in the voting booth when I vote on these yahoos.

[Freedom4US]

Somebody once called it the “1913 Revolution”; because the US also got the Federal Reserve.

[oblomov]

Nice summary here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/healy1.html

[oblomov]

Congress is NOT 1/3 of the government. Each of the branches of the federal government has distinct powers.

[oblomov]

Very interesting. Thank you for correcting me.

[SJSAMPLE]

LOL.
Shhhhhhh. (My wife's right behind me)

[Popman]

If we still had states appointing senators, we’d never see a GOP majority again. This author is either stupid, or a Democrat(but I repeat myself.)

Nonsense

The states legislation would have a direct say on what happens in DC.

The powers that the federal government have usurped over the years from the states would be vastly reduced and people in general are way more conservative than liberal. We would have a much more conservative Senate and in general a much more conservative government.

The forces that drive our government would be derived from the states