The Road to Mass Democracy: Original Intent and the Seventeenth Amendment

The Independent Review ^ | Winter 1997 | Todd J. Zywicki

[robertpaulsen]

"So you’re saying that *you* are willing to take up arms to prevent gay marriage or abortion?"

No, that's not what I'm saying. Here. I'll type real slow 'cause you're new.

I'm saying your "Federal Supremacy" form of government doesn't make Civil War any less likely. Maybe more so, as the government attempts to force-feed their one-size-fits-all agenda on the American public.

Now, maybe you think this is a good thing because you think they will be promoting your agenda. Well, if you're going to fantasize, might as well go all the way.

[robertpaulsen]

"Uh, excuse me, but you don’t make that call. Thank God."

No, it was merely a suggestion. I mean, once you're banned from FR you'll be wanting to post somewhere where people will accept your philosophy.

(Hint: When you go there don't use words with more than three syllables. They'll call you a troll and you'll be kicked off their forum faster than here.)

[robertpaulsen]

"Well, if you *not* willing to take up arms to prevent gay marriage or abortion"

Even when I typed real slow to tell you the point I was making, you still insist on getting it wrong. Is there something wrong with you? Seriously.

[robertpaulsen]

"In this state we have an ELECTED judicial oligarchy. Not much better, I assure you."

Well, I'd rather have 50 judicial oligarchies interpreting the BOR than one. At least, then, I can move to a state of my liking.

Which, of course, is the whole concept of federalism.

[KC Burke]

George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki has some interesting historical analysis about the decisive actions that enacted the 17th.

His take was it wasn’t one of the two theories most often cited:

He felt that it wasn’t progressive-ism and total democracy crowd as that had been fought off for 80 years with success.

Secondly he discounted the often cited problems that state legislatures had with electing the senators eventually leading to plurality rather than majority votes being used in some cases.

He cites special interests were tired of trying to buy state legislatures and felt that their money could be more cheaply effective buying voters and would more often insure a Senator that would be beholden to special intersts.

Astonishingly, John W. Dean wrote an article that actually summarized much of Zywicki’s work and pointed me to this particular study.

I haven’t been able to find Zywicki’s study on the web in full, but I have found a lot of references to it.

[robertpaulsen]

"THAT concept of federalism leads straight to war."

So you’re saying that *you* are willing to take up arms to preserve gay marriage or abortion?

[JSDude1]

Um no, and no, on both counts:

For one, myfriend: Who’s to say that Arnold S. would be elected Senator (that sounds more fantasy to me..but continue on with your delusions..).

It’s not insulation (though it may be a bit aristocratic) to demand that Senators be elected by state legislature.

In fact it would give the states a bigger voice in the Federal government: the way it should be: And No, The Civil War didn’t settle ‘States Right’, and neither should it have since states weren’t made to be subordinate to the Federal Government: Do you ACTUALLY read the Constitution, btw: You ever heard of the oft ignored 10th?.

The states were the ones that created the Federal government, the federal government did not create the states..As President Ronald Reagan is quoted to have said:....

You, it seems are delusional and living in fantasy, not me..

[JSDude1]

that’s what I would like to know too..

I for one would rather see States supremecy than Gay marriage forced upon the states by the Judiciary!~

[robertpaulsen]

"I’m willing to take up arms against anyone who would violently overthrow the government."

Oh, how noble. Yet your conclusion about my statement is that you think I'm willing to take up arms to prevent gay marriage or abortion.

[robertpaulsen]

"than Gay marriage forced upon the states by the Judiciary"

Or anything else the U.S.Supreme Court forced on us via their interpretation of the BOR.

[x]

True, the Senate does have unique powers that would prevent it from becoming wholly powerless, but my general point was that bodies that aren't popularly elected tend to lose legitimacy in a democratic era.

Before the amendment was passed some state legislatures decided that they would abide by the popular vote in their decisions. That would have continued whether or not the amendment were passed in 1913 until the point where an there would have been an amendment to deal with the few remaining cases. If the Senate or the legislatures stood firm against popular election, the upper house would have lost legitimacy in voters' eyes.

The problem with a lot of these theories is that they assume that Senators wanted to be elected indirectly or that state legislatures wanted additional power. That's not always the case. The average member of the Senate became more prominent and powerful with popular election, and state legislators -- whatever their hunger for power -- haven't always wanted the responsibility that goes with it.

[x]

Senate seats weren't for life or hereditary, as those in Lords' were, but it's interesting that the House of Lords lost its important powers at just about the same time the 17th Amendment was passed. That was the spirit of the day.

People believed that more democracy would make things better. It looks very naive now, but if you're on the other side of an entrenched non-elected power, it's easy to believe that popular election would fix things.