Those Freepers who argue we are not a democracy are correct as far as that goes. We are a representative democracy in the framework of a Constitutional Republic.
However, those detractors of the 17th amendment have valid points, but I would say that is because of the weakening of state’s rights, not because it makes a more direct nod towards pure democracy. That is the context I have seen discussions in.
The original purpose was that senators would be the direct representatives of the state governments at the Federal level and ensure the state’s interests were represented. That was diluted (in their opinion, and I agree) by the passage of the 17th Amendment.
That is their issue and why many of them think the 17th Amendment should be repealed. To them, it is a state rights issue, and they are pretty passionate about it.
I think they should be. We all should be.
What we see here as a culmination of the last 75 years is a Federal Government out of control, and the states have no say in affairs now.
I disagree with that. Senators invoke "the will" of their state interests all the time in justifying their votes, from Robert Byrd, to the two Marxists from California, to John Thune (who held up the Bolton nomination nationally solely to blackmail the government into giving his state an airforce base), and so on. Furthermore, you mention the two houses were designed to represent separate constituencies. Congressman specifically are there to represent "regional" interests, regardless of what the Senate does.
>> It was no small chance that the Federal income tax and the 17th came at about the same time. <<
Huh? The federal income tax was the 16th amendment, not the 18th. By that very numbering, it was therefore passed into law by a a state-legislature appointed Senate that represented "state interests", NOT an popularly elected Senate. Your argument makes as much sense as saying "it was no accident that Judaism was big in the Roman empire when Jesus started preaching"
>> However, those detractors of the 17th amendment have valid points, but I would say that is because of the weakening of state’s rights, not because it makes a more direct nod towards pure democracy. That is the context I have seen discussions in. <<
I have seen the "states rights" argument, I have also seen freepers argue a popularly elected Senate is "direct democracy" and will result in "mob rule", which I think is total B.S. and which you will probably agree with (after all, the House of Representatives has been elected by that method since 1789)
>> To them, it is a state rights issue, and they are pretty passionate about it. <<
If the 17th amendment replaced a state legislature appointed senate with a Presidential-appointed U.S. Senate, I could see their alarm that the "federal government" is taking away power at the expense of the states. Instead, they express alarm at individual citizens taking power away from the states. Since when it is conservative to prefer power in the hands of government officials than individual citizens? Don't we want to REDUCE government middle men? I don't trust big government at the local, state, OR federal level. Government exists to do what people cannot do for themselves. That's a basic tenant of conservativism 101. I certainly believe "we the people" can choose our representatives rather than have big government do it for us.
>> the states have no say in affairs now. <<
Completely disagree. I live in a state (Illinois) with a huge, mammoth, overreaching STATE government, that routinely pokes their nose into every conceivable situation they can think of, and has enormous power of the lives of its citizens, regardless of who is running the federal government or what laws the feds pass.
For example, our last governor issued an executive order forcing Illinois pharmaceuticals to dispense abortion pills or their pharmacies would be shut down by state officials. That's a tyrannical law in effect solely at the state level, regardless of what going on in the other 49 states, or at the federal government with pharmacies.
Furthermore, our state and local government not only pass all kinds of powerful laws with legislation that the feds give them authority over, but even pass overreaching laws that VIOLATE federal laws, with absolutely no "interference" from the supposedly all-powerful oppressive federal government (again, regardless of what party is in power at the federal level). For example, federal law CLEARLY states that all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, and this has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be interpreted as a individual right. This federal law is violated in Illinois on a daily basis, as the local Chicago government has passed its own laws to ban all handguns within city limits. The federal government has done nothing to force Chicago to comply with the 2nd amendment. How about federal law on immigration? State and local government routinely ignore national immigration laws and declare themselves "sanctuary cities". And our last governor even took a taxpayer funded trip to Cuba and hammered out his own "Illinois-Cuba trade agreement" to sell farming goods to Castro, as if he had the powers of a U.S. ambassador to make treaties with foreign nations. The U.S. constitution CLEARLY states that NO state can engage in "trade compacts with a foreign power" unless they get the consent of Congress first. I seem to have missed when he went to the federal government, spoke before Congress, and was granted permission to conduct trade relations with our avowed enemy nation Cuba.
And should I even get into state and local city councils arrogance in passing "resolutions" demanding the feds follow their beliefs on national matters that don't pertain to states and cities? Do you know how many city and local governments passed "anti-war" resolutions during the Iraq war to undermine the federal government's position on the matter? You don't see the federal retaliate by passing meaningless "resolutions" advising those cities how to conduct their local affairs like garbage clean-up, do you?
I strongly disagree that states have no power in their own affairs now and we need to increase the power of state governments. I believe most state governments, like the federal government, are far too overreaching already and need to be drastically reduced. States like California, New York, Illinois, etc., etc., are anything but weak and powerless.
If we go by the logic that the 17th amendment is bad because it transferred power away from states and into individual citizens, then we better abolish the 2nd amendment too. Right now, individual citizens have the right to decide for themselves whether they can keep and bear arms, regardless of how their state legislatures feel about it. If we abolish the 2nd amendment, then we'd enpower "states rights" to regulate guns as they see fit. In fact, you could make a case that most amendments took away "states rights" to do whatever they want. How about abolishing the 13th too? Prior to it passing, we had "states rights" to decide whether or not human beings can enslave other human beings. And by abolishing the 1st amendment, individuals would no longer be able to decide for themselves if they can speak out and print newspapers. We would enpower "states rights" to determine at the state level whether their citizens have those rights.
I fail to see how giving state government total control over these matters and taking it way from "the people" is in any way a positive step for America. I don't want states to have "right" to determine whether I can own guns, go to church, make speeches, and decide who will represent me in Washington.