Posted on 06/01/2010 11:59:35 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Few members of the Tea Party have endorsed Rand Paul’s misgivings about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but a surprising number are calling for the repeal of an older piece of transformative legislation: the 17th Amendment. If you don’t have the Constitution on your smartphone, that’s the one adopted in 1913 that provides for direct popular election of United States senators.
Allowing Americans to choose their own senators seems so obvious that it is hard to remember that the nation’s founders didn’t really trust voters with the job. The people were given the right to elect House members. But senators were supposed to be a check on popular rowdiness and factionalism. They were appointed by state legislatures, filled with men of property and stature.
A modern appreciation of democracy — not to mention a clear-eyed appraisal of today’s dysfunctional state legislatures — should make the idea unthinkable. But many Tea Party members and their political candidates are thinking it anyway, convinced that returning to the pre-17th Amendment system would reduce the power of the federal government and enhance state rights.
Senate candidates have to raise so much money to run that they become beholden to special interests, party members say. They argue that state legislators would not be as compromised and would choose senators who truly put their state’s needs first.
Around the country, Tea Party affiliates and some candidates have been pressing for repeal — though there also has been a lot of hasty backtracking by politicians once the voters realized the implications. In Idaho, two candidates in last month’s Republican primary for the First District House seat said they favored repeal, including the winner, Raul Labrador...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Correct point.
The Senator might be selected as a result not of the majority support, but do to gerrymandering that helps a party.
"James Madison's concern about class warfare between the rich and the poor led him to favor the House of Representatives being elected by the people at large and the Senate elected by property owners. He said, "It is nevertheless certain, that there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defense against the danger. On the other hand, the danger to the holders of property cannot be disguised, if they be undefended against a majority without property.""
Originally, Senators were accountable to the interests of the states, not the average Joe Schmoe "Gimmie a handout" voter. That's what the House is for.
The original idea was correct. Direct accountability is not always a good thing. The passions of the majority must be tempered as well.
I am from FL, so I can only venture a guess at the photo. Would that be the notorious airhead, Patty Murray of “Mom in Sneakers” fame?
Well. You are repealing the wrong amendment then.
The amendment that gave the vote to every American of 18 means that the statehouse will be filled with the same class that exists at the Federal level anyway. and the statehouse will just select one of their own - one who will be LESS accountable than today.
“Originally, Senators were accountable to the interests of the states” So are TODAY’S Senators, by being accountable to the voters of their state. If we see the lack of Federalism, its not due the form of election but IS due to the voters mindset. changing the form of selection will NOT cure the problem!
“Congressmen represent the people. Senators represent the states. That’s how it was designed. The states lost their representation after the 17th, and now look how much power they have left.”
Yep. One purpose of the Senate was that the Senators would be less likely to vote for Federal legislation that allowed the Federal Gov to take political power away from the states. You know, things such as high taxes, control of education, control of health care, unreasonable environmental laws, etc.
You miss the point of my analogy. Texas elects Judges - the elected state supreme court in Texas is much better than the selected state supreme courts in many other states, like Florida or Michigan or ... most other states.
"A trend that was started after the enactment of the 17th amendment perhaps? " ... It has NOTHING to do with the 17th amendment. It has a lot more to do with the New Deal and FDR. Before FDR, the Federal Govt was about 3% of GDP, and when he left it was 25% of GDP... we never went back. NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW SENATORS WERE
It's sad that people are rushing off to propose an irrelevent change while the REAL issue is right in front of us - Leviathan Federal Government.
"vicious circle? Ceding the appointment power to the people results in less legislature power" ... your state lege has PLENTY of power and doesnt need selection of senators to stand up for their state. My concern is that making accountability more remote via indirect elec
Tony Blankley:
“If senators were again selected by state legislatures, the longevity of Senate careers would be tethered to their vigilant defense of their state’s interest - rather than to the interest of Washington forces of influence.
“The Senate, then, would take on its original function - the place where the states are represented in the federal government.
“Senators still would be just as likely to be corrupted. But the corruption would be dispersed to the 50 separate state legislatures. The corruption more often would be on behalf of state interests. And its remedy would be achievable by the vigilance of voters for more responsive state legislative seats (typically less than 50,000 residences per state legislator), rather than Senate seats (the entire population of the state - usually millions.) “
Yup. But our own boy Bobbie Casey is giving her serious competition for the title now.
“If senators were again selected by state legislatures, the longevity of Senate careers would be tethered to their vigilant defense of their state’s interest - rather than to the interest of Washington forces of influence.”
This statement suffers from the same errors that liberals fall into - comparing the idealistic view of the proposal to the reality of status quo. No, you need to look at the REALITY of what will happen:
- State Reps are NOT THEMSELVES tethered to state’s interest, they are tethered to the people and the special interests. Democrats who dont give a rat’s behind about federalism will send clowns who share that same mindset to Washington. You are sorely mistaken if you think they would NOT do so. That means that New YOrk and Mass. and othe rstates would be just as bad as ever.
- The REMOTENESS of accountability would mean that bills like ObamaCare would be EASIER TO PASS. The people would have a harder time fixing it.
The proposal is, AT BEST, an irrelevent distraction from the real solutions to the problems we face.
IF WE WANT FEDERALISM THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY, GET THE PEOPLE TO DEMAND IT OF ALL OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS.
Thank you. I continue to disagree.
The year 1913 was a banner year for Woodrow Wilson and the liberal progressives. The income tax (16A), Federal Reserve, and the 17th Amendment.
All have done great damage to the republic.
smae elites? You mean “smart” elites?
Some states ARE standing up for their rights in the age of 0b0z0, but since they have no representation in Congress, they can't do a damned thing to prevent further federal tyranny.
After what happened on Nov. 4, 2008, do you really want to put the task of restraining the federal leviathan entirely in the hands of the people? All you need is another Epic Fail on the part of the Republicans, should they get back into power, and we’ll have another round of people like Al Frankenfraud elected to the Senate.
The people are indeed the ones to whom the government should be accountable, but there needs to be a backup, in case the will of the people runs counter to liberty, as it did on Nov. 4, 2008.
“Senate candidates have to raise so much money to run that they become beholden to special interests, party members say. They argue that state legislators would not be as compromised and would choose senators who truly put their state’s needs first.”
Well, I con’t speak for other states, but the legislatures in my home state couldn’t be trusted in past either. Also, in some states like my home state of Oklahoma. The people used to pick Democrates for the legislature, but usualy voted Republican in national elections....they typically picked GOP Senators; conservative ones. IF Senators had of been chosen by the State Legislature, then Oklahoma would never have sent conservative Senators to congress.
I have great respect for the original intentions of the founders, when only persons of property got to vote. And members to State Legislatures were typically men of property, etc. (in a sense the Senate was equivalent to the the English “House of Lords”) That has changed since then, and the constitution was properly ammended as required (it wasn’t a judge that changed things).
I wonder if Governor Jindal would have to wait for Federal permission to defend Louisiana against the oil spill, if the States still appointed Senators.
I’m sure that most state legislators still own property. HOWEVER, a lot of them are DEMOCRATS, and therein lies the problem.
“I wonder if Governor Jindal would have to wait for Federal permission to defend Louisiana against the oil spill, if the States still appointed Senators.”
Yes, he would. The Senate would be no more responsive to the state regardless of how they came to office. Actually, it could be argued that they are MORE responsive when elected directly by the people.
Whatever, the people elect state legislators. IF those same elected legislators then pick the state’s U.S. Senators...it is indirectly the same thing.
As it was originally intended, the Senate, being more removed from the people, could be a more deliberative body. Unfortunately, that has changed, and it actually had changed when the consitution was properly ammended to make them subject to direct vote of the people.
Whatever, I don’t really have that strong of feelings about this issue. However, I can tell you plainly that getting through a constitutional ammendment to ban all abortions would be easier than getting one through that would take away the people’s ability to directly elect U.S. Senators. They say the former is nearly impossible, the later is.
It isn’t worth wasting energy upon, and may make the tea party to look out of touch with THE PEOPLE. More important to the tea party, as I understand it, is to attempt to elect fiscal conservatives. Personally, I want anyone I elect to be both socially/morally conservative as well as fiscally conservative. Of course, I want persons representing me to also be strong on national defense and to not be afraid to use our military forces when needed.
“After what happened on Nov. 4, 2008, do you really want to put the task of restraining the federal leviathan entirely in the hands of the people?”
Duh, of course.
Democracy is the worst form of Govt. Except for all the rest.
We have no choice. We win hearts and minds back to freedom, the constitution and rule of law ... or we are toast anyway.
“in case the will of the people runs counter to liberty, as it did on Nov. 4, 2008.”
that backup is called Nov 2, 2010.
It’s true. The FF had a healthy distrust of pure democracy (mob rule).
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.