Posted on 10/21/2007 1:20:15 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Democratizing the Constitution: The Failure of the Seventeenth Amendment
which is also on FreeRepublic
PING!
As long as the Supreme Court ignores the Constitution, nothing that’s done will help.
Assure the right people are selected to sit on the high court, and most of the liberal slide toward the abyss will cease.
In some sense, as an upper house, the Senate did have similarities to the House of Lords. If the Senate had remained an indirectly elected body, it would have lost power in a democratic age which assumed that all power grew out of direct elections. That's what happened to the House of Lords.
Also, I'm not sure that an unelected Senate was a safeguard against special interest legislation. There certainly was enough tariff legislation to benefit special interests before 1913.
And there wasn't much of an change immediately after 1914. Change came with the Depression and the New Deal, as government increased its power and people got together to make use of that power.
It's unclear to me that indirect election to the senate served as a bulwark against that. It was just that the playing field shifted from party machines and state legislatures to campaign advertising and direct elections.
What did change is that after 1914 Senators who'd had to win popular elections began to think of themselves as prospective presidents. Earlier, the Senate had been the reward and resting place of old politicians and businessmen -- and on occasion -- of elder statesmen.
The Senate specifically ratifies treaties, nominates and confirms executive officers and judges, and tries impeached officials. I’m sure the Senate would want retain those powers, even if its members were still appointed by the states. And they would still be subject to activism from the legislatures, so I doubt that they’d pass on lawmaking, either.
Draconian. Answer in one word: Coup.
Britain doesn't have a written constitution though. They just sort of feel like the house ought to be more powerful. The senate has explicit rights.
Also, I'm not sure that an unelected Senate was a safeguard against special interest legislation. There certainly was enough tariff legislation to benefit special interests before 1913
Right. It wouldn't eliminate corruption, but I think it would lessen the degree of corruption at the federal level.
And there wasn't much of an change immediately after 1914. Change came with the Depression and the New Deal, as government increased its power and people got together to make use of that power.
Well it took six years for the changeover to be completed after ratification due to the two year staggered elections rule. Then there was the economic boom of the twenties. The depression was their first real test.
I would heartily support the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. I believe then that voters could have better representation through their state legislators who would check and balance the senators who are sent to Washington. It is the republican form that the Fed is supposed to guarantee to the States.
Do you think that all of Roosevelt's socialist legislative crap could have passed Congress, had the states still had a forum for their interests in the Senate? (I'm sure some of it still would have passed; those were desperate times.)
This involves only ONE amendment, you liberal moron.
I have to concur that your mockery reeks of progressivism, and while SOME of those ideas do seriously sound well..
The repealment of the Seventeenth Amendment would do wonders to restore federalism, and the balance of State power vs. federal powers. They would no longer just be little more than “adminstrative units” of the Federal Government..
We just want to get rid of the 16th and 17th Amendments. Your side wants to get rid of the 1st (nationwide speech codes... uh, I mean “hate crimes” legislation), 2nd (guns are evil), and the 10th (everything is federal) Amendments. The Amendments we would repeal would allow more freedom for the People, by way of allowing them to keep the money they earn (Capitalism!) and giving the States some ability to limit the Congress. Your side wants to control the People via an omnipotent federal government.
No, some of us will just call you an @$$hole and let you rant your way into anonymous oblivion.
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.