Posted on 02/08/2013 3:21:06 PM PST by FatMax
The Founding Fathers knew that in order to ratify a Constitution and preserve the fledgling United States, it was essential that the states have representation in the new Federal government. The legislative branch would be split; the people represented by the directly elected members of the House of Representatives, and each state represented by two officials appointed by the state legislatures. In the new system, the House would represent the people and the Senate would represent the states. Without a federalist system of divided, enumerated, and checked powers between the federal and state governments, no union would be possible - the states, wary of potentially losing their sovereignty to an all-powerful government, would back out, and the world's most free and prosperous nation would never have become a reality.
According to the Founders' vision, so long as the U.S. senator served the state's interest, the senator would remain in power. This way, the upper house could focus on their business, not encumbered by the elections of their lower house counterparts.
But in the early 20th Century, Progressives argued that the federalist arrangement in place fostered corruption and excessive special interests in the Senate. Ignoring the original intent of the Constitution and under the cover of "democracy" (we are in fact a constitutional republic, not a democracy), the federal government quickly ratified the 17th Amendment, establishing the direct election of U.S. senators. States no longer had any representation in Washington, and the amendment paved the way for even more corruption and special interest influence.
Today, we have a Senate that regularly passes legislation contrary to the interests of the states, thanks to the moral hazard introduced by the 17th Amendment. Perhaps most residents in your state opposes national healthcare, but both of your senators voted in favor. Why not? They can't be recalled at moment's notice by the state legislative branch, like they could 100 years ago. All they have to do is get enough votes from their citizens - or perhaps enough voter fraud - and they are safe for six years. Missouri may not want Obamacare and Wyoming may not want tough new gun control laws, but thanks to the 17th Amendment, the state's hands are tied.
What if the 17th Amendment was repealed?
Currently, there are 52 Democrats, 46 Republicans, and two Independents, both of whom caucus with the Democrats. But in state legislative branches there are 51% Republicans and only 46% Democrats - nearly an exact opposite of the party makeup of the U.S. Senate. And that doesn't include the non-partisan unicameral Nebraska state legislature; it isn't a stretch to suggest that a state that virtually always sends Republicans to Washington would somehow depart from the trend.
Below is a map displaying the party makeup of the 50 states and how they are represented in the U.S. Senate. The varying shades of red and blue signify the % of majority control, either Republican (red), or Democrat (blue). Click here or on the image to see the full-size version.
Now, another map - this time red represents a Republican delegation, blue Democrat (or Democrat/Independent as both Independent senators caucus with the Democrats), and purple for a split D/R delegation. Click here or on the image to see the full-size version.
It is likely in a state like Hawaii - with over 90% Democrat majority control of the state houses - would have two Democrat U.S. senators. But few states have such a strong majority control. If the 17th Amendment were to be magically repealed today, returning selection to the states, it is highly probable that states would appoint senators according to party makeup of the state legislatures. A state with more Democrats would be more likely to appoint more Democrats and vise-versa. A state that was more balanced would be forced to compromise and would be more likely to have a split delegation. It is unlikely that South Dakota, a state whose voters elected nearly 80% Republicans, would only appoint one Republican senator. And it is also unlikely that a state like Michigan, where nearly two out of every three state legislators are Republican, would somehow appoint both senators from the minority party.
My theory is that if the 17th Amendment were repealed, states with 67% majority control of the state legislature or more would likely appoint two senators from the majority party, and states with less than 67% majority control would have insufficient leverage and be forced to moderate, nominating one member from each party. Non-partisan Nebraska, with all Republican officials, will stay Republican in this experiment, and both Independent senators are not a factor since they already caucus with the Democrats anyways.
Below is my proposed results, considering the makeup of the U.S. Senate and all 50 state legislatures in January 2013. Click here or on the image to see the full-size version.
According to the hypothesis, Republicans would gain an astonishing 12 seats from Democrats, a strong majority at 58 versus the Democrats' 40. There are many factors that are not accounted for in this study, such as voter fraud, the varying platform and history of each politician, media coverage, etc. But regardless of the varying and impossible-to-predict factors in a system with millions of voters, the overall premise remains: that the stronger majority control a state legislature has, the more likely it is that the state will appoint a member of the majority party. Even if only half of the seats predicted actually change hands, the Republicans would still gain control of the Senate - 52 seats to the Democrats' 46.
Corruption must be checked and the Senate should do the bidding of the state - not the special interests. But a constitutional republic is a rule of laws, not a rule of men, as is a democracy. The Founding Fathers - who had a far greater intelligence than today's politician - dedicated one half of the legislative branch to the states for good reason. By repealing the 17th Amendment, we would restore the federalist system that kept Americans free and prosperous.
Chris Carter
Director, The Victory Institute
Clearly, it would be a nightmare for lobbyists at present, since there’d be no way to make an appeal and size up so many members. However, it might explode the lobbying industry in time in order to overcome that obstacle (and as now, probably huge numbers of ex-legislators would step up in order to make it happen).
I think we may have already passed the point to which this federal government can be effective (and it has already demonstrated not only contempt for the Constitution, but a cafeteria approach to enforcement of laws). It’s not only the sheer number of people in this country, but the drastically opposed agenda, splitting half the population. Let the leftist moonbats have their own country made up of specific locales to (mis)manage and destroy, and let the rest of us have our own to handle, with a higher level of standards. I liken it to a very bad and abusive marriage that is in need of divorce.
Regarding balancing “the people” with “the states”...
Originally,
representatives were about 2 1/2 times in number as senators (65 vs 26)...
(now, that would translate to 250 representatives vs 50 senators...
currently, we have 435 vs 100 or about 4 1/2 times in number).
Originally,
representatives were 1 per 30,000 in population
(now, that would translate to 10,000 members in the house of representatives...
currently, we have 1 representative per 690,000 in population).
Which is why they wouldn't respond to any of the points you made in #35, either. The biggest problem is the "Repeal the 17th amendment crowd!!" wants to live in a pretend world and discuss state legislatures as they existed in 1789, not as they currently exist in the 21st century. Their whole argument rests on the concept that repealing the 17th amendment would someone how magically cause state governments to revert back to the 18th century counterparts once they had the power to name Senators.
It would be like me demanding a repeal of the 12th amendment and continually insisting a John Adams like statesman would become Obama's veep, since that's who was veep when the constitution went into effect, and continually ignoring every post that proved Mitt Romney would automatically get the job because he's next in line under the current government.
Basically, this is how the U.S. Senate would look according to the anti-17th amendment crowd.
Not really. Directly elected Senators don’t represent the states as originally intended and pretty much fuel the growth of the federal government because that is their power base. They have no incentive to defend their state from unfunded mandates and encroachments on state powers because all they need to curry favor with is some deep pocket donors and the media.
Appointed senators are beholden to the state legislature that sent them so they will be far more vigilant in taking the states side in the above mentioned items. Their power base will be at the state level with their state level colleagues in the legislature.
The 17th amendment really jump started the progressive takeover of the federal government.
Billy does make sense if you bother to step back from your single-minded agenda and listen. To suggest to someone (a Conservative) from Illinois about investing their perennially corrupt state legislature led by Boss Mike Madigan to have unfettered control over their two Senators is viscerally offensive. Dropping f-bombs is not going to make your case, either.
Have you ever heard of gerrymandering? You can gerrymander state legislature districts so the vote is dilluted. Chicago controls half of the state legislative seats. You CANNOT gerrymander a state (at least, state politicianas haven't done so yet, don't given then any ideas or they might start redrawing New Hampshire to take it some liberal Vermont counties) Chicago accounts for 25% of the popular vote, compared to 50% of the legislature seats.
Hence, there are many states where Democrats have a veto proof majority in the state house, yet the citizens can and DO elect decent conservative Republican Senators statewide.
My best posts, sometimes, don’t make it past the mods.
Is it any wonder why our government has grown so corrupt? It is literally the many being RULED by a few. If the tables were turned and the government was constituted according to how our Founders idealized, we wouldn’t have half the problems we have now.
There’s no way to reform what’s in place now.
All of this has been covered and addressed/rebutted in discussions in this thread and others. I suggest reading the points Billyboy & I have stated upthread.
Just as an aside, if there was some viable way to return to a high-minded states rights agenda to balance out the federal government, many of us could be persuaded to support it, but repealing the 17th isn’t going to do it, not at all. You guys imagine a Senate populated by John Adams or Edward Everett or Henry Clay or John C. Calhoun types. What you’re gonna get is the same radical leftists from Democrat states (Elizabeth Warren) and “Republicans” like Karl Rove from GOP states (TX). Senators chosen by bosses and flunkies and those looking for more and more $$ for their states. And all of them thoroughly unaccountable.
Do ya one better. Make all expenditures proportional to the State Census. IE: Any/all bills are sent to the States, per their population, for x% of the debt.
Watch then how Congress, and especially the Senate, starts to crack down on the pork barrel ‘spending’
“...make all expenditures proportional to the state census...”
-
I thought about that one time...
Something like this:
“Upon approval, the annual budget, and any supplemental budgets of the United States shall be proportioned annually to each of the several states according to the number of members in the House of Representatives. The manner and method of collection of the annual proportionment shall be determined by each of the several states.”
But what happens when a district does not, can not, or refuses to cough up the bucks?
Do you not let them have representation anymore, or what?
"...the federal government quickly ratified the 17th Amendment, ..."
To begin with, I find it disturbing that the article in the OP included the wording above. Only the states, not the federal government, have the Article V authority to ratify proposed amendments to the Constitution.
Next, the 17th Amendment is practically meaningless imo. After all, senators swear to defend the Constitution and work within Congress's Section 8-limited powers no matter who elects them into office. The reason that voters are so interested in who runs DC is that voters are evidently clueless that the Founders had reserved the lion's share of government power to serve the people to the states, not the federal government.
The problem with the Senate is the following. As I have mentioved in related threads, Justice John Marshall had officially clarified that Congress is prohibited from laynig taxes in the name of state power issues, issues which Congress cannot justify under Sectian 8 of Article I.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
And one of the likely reasons that the Senate was originally established was to kill any appropriations bills from the House of Representatives which not only wrongly usurped state powers, but also stole, as Justice Marshall had clarified, state revenues associated with usurped state powers.
So the Founding States had the right idea with respect to having the state legislatures elect federal senators. The Founders had undoubtedly envisioned that state sovereignty-minded state lawmakers could give the boot to federal senators who helped the HoR to pass bills which usurped state powers and stole state revenues.
Unfortunately, what the Founders had likely feared concerning the Senate has been going on for decades. The corrupt Senate has been helping the House to pass Section 8 noncompliant taxing and spending legislation, the DC elite and their rich supporters essentially partying on the illegal taxes.
After all, why engage in the risky business of robbing banks for a living when you can get elected to Congress and make legislation that robs people by means of illegal federal taxes?
Bump for later consideration...
ping
You don't know and don't care about Framer's legislature of two houses derived from different sources. They were well aware of corrupt men and our government was designed to divide them such that competing interests were played against one another. We are in big trouble today precisely because both houses are popularly derived and Senators play to the fears and demands of the mob just like Congressmen.
There is no basis for rational argument with you. Go play with your puppetmasters and whatever your bossism is.
Thanks for the full text. My link was only the abstract.
The FieldMarshal is well known as an anti states rights bigot. He is a statist big time.
Woodrow Wilson is actually channeling his progressive desires from the grave through the Fieldmarshal.
Billy Boy is a Yankee from Yankee land. So what he thinks he projects out over to everyone else. See they “won” the war to destroy the republic so they are right about everything.
While we are fixing(restoring) the Constitution can we repeal the 16th amendment too ?
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.