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What if the 17th Amendment was repealed?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
Look at what happened when the democrat party got popular, elective majorities in the 1930s, 1960s and 2008. It was only then, when social justice claptrap like the New Deal, Great Society and Obamunism could flourish.
It was all made possible by Senators who advanced expensive freebies to the faction that put them in power, the mob.
Repeal the 19th while you’re at it.
I am only half-kidding.
Since both houses of Congress are popularly derived, why put up with the bother and dissension? One house can do the will of the people.
Deliberation and agreement would be easier. Wouldn’t a single house Congress “get things done?”
I've always liked your moniker. I'm surprised there isn't a FReeper with the moniker, "Repeal The 16th."
5.56mm
I did understand the point. More R-controlled legislatures than current R-Senate seats = Senate seat gains for R. I get it. Not too hard. If course, the D’s get it too.
I hope you got my point, too. Even this author is proposing to monkey-around with the Constitution to get what he wants out of it, short-term.
Go re-read the US Constitution. It’s not very long. There’s almost as much stricken out of it by Amendments as remains of the original writing (I exagerate).
The Founders were trying to create something, a government that worked in a certain way, out of that document - like a high-performance automobile engine.
We approach it like monkeys with hammers, bending parts and smashing things, and still expect it to work without understanding what it was doing in the first place.
I would like the 17th Amendment repealed, just as the author would. But it isn’t going to happen just so that R’s can pick up seats in the Senate.
It will only happen when enough people realize how broken the Federal Government has become by its inclusion.
The Houses no longer check each other. The Senate functions exactly like the House, only on steroids. There is no representation, at all, in the Federal legislature for the rights of the Individual AGAINST the will of the Majority.
I believe this damage is NOT accidental. The Progressive Movement in America has ALWAYS been about enabling mob-rule within a Government set-up to restrain it.
Thanks for pointing that out; I thought it was a typo or something. I would like to see a national discussion on a lot of things, the ratio of citizens to elected officials in the House being one of them.
Regarding democracy, I think you are assuming that citizens will vote according to what is constitutional and what is best for society. Look around - that clearly is not the case. Many millions of Americans sit around doing nothing while a shrinking number of taxpayers subsidize their existence.
Most of these no- or low-information voters have no clue about constitutional issues, economics, treaties, national security, and so on; and only vote based on their own personal and immediate interests.
When a society has a significant percentage of voters that don’t know or don’t care what happens to anyone else, they vote for politicians that won’t follow the laws that govern our society. Remember, true democracy is a group of wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner... that is what is occurring politically today.
That is why we are a constitutional republic and not a democracy - because the Founders wanted to prevent THIS from happening.
No, I'm well aware that citizens routinely elect horrible politicians. I am outvoted by my liberal neighbors all the time. What I am assuming, however, is that OVERALL, citizens will make better choices than career politicians would when it comes to selecting Senators. This doesn't mean every Senator they elect will be great constitutional giants. What it does mean is that you will see a handful of solid tea party types elected to the Senate, whereas you are unlikely to ever see such individuals appointed to the Senate by politicians.
>> Look around - that clearly is not the case. Many millions of Americans sit around doing nothing while a shrinking number of taxpayers subsidize their existence. <<
Your argument fits my state legislature to a tee. The vast majority of them are lazy political hacks who sit around doing nothing by a shrinking number of taxpayers subsidize their existence. While half the public collects government goodies, 100% of state politicians collect government goodies. These are the people you want appointing my Senator.
>> Remember, true democracy is a group of wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner... that is what is occurring politically today. <<
Nobody is arguing that because the people have the right to vote for the U.S. Senate, they should have absolute power to do WHATEVER they want by simple majority. The only ones screaming about that insane scenario is you "abolish the 17th amendment" types, and your argument makes as much sense as arguing that the UK is "in danger" of the Queen getting absolute power of her citizens as long as they have a monarchy. Look around you and the Democrats shoving Obamacare down our throats despite the VAST majority of Americans opposing it, or imposing gay marriage with activist judges when the PEOPLE of a state are overwhelmingly against it -- we the people have less and less power over our government, NOT the other way around.
>> That is why we are a constitutional republic and not a democracy - because the Founders wanted to prevent THIS from happening. <<
We are a democratic constitutional republic, which means that millions of ordinary Americans are able to directly vote on all sorts of matters across the country, whether it's recalling governors, passing propositions in Califoria to cut off goodies for illegal aliens and preserve traditional marriage, amending state constitutions, throwing out bad Congressman and Senators, removing judges, electing delegates to national party conventions, and abolishing state agencies. If the founders wanted to PREVENT this from having and create a "Republic, not a democracy", they would have created a North Korean style government where the politicians appoint whoever they want to serve in the federal government and the citizens have absolutely no say whatsoever in the process. If you think that system is preferable, you are welcome to move to such a country.
The owner of FreeRepublic is a Yankee from Yankee land (California). Must suck, being on such a terrible website run by yankees. Maybe you can find a new one. By no coincidence, most of America's enemies that despise our constition also sneer about "Yankees from yankee land"
Must really grind your gears that the citizens of my "liberal socialist yankee state" elects more conservative Republicans to the U.S. Senate that yours. So we'll punish the citizens of my state because your "conservative" state keep electing commies to the Senate.
The House represents population interests and the Senate represents geographic interests. This is why Congresswoman Shelia Jackson Lee of Texas will never be Senator Shelia Jackson Lee of Texas, and Congressman Scott Garrett of New Jersey will never be Senator Scott Garrett of New Jersey. They represent vastly different constituencies in the House and Senate.
However, your argument would make sense when it comes to merging the two houses of many of those state legislatures you want to give power to.
I have about 20 pages to finish in Edmund Burnett’s “The Continental Congress.” After that, I will dive into your pdf with pleasure. Thanks again.
You seem to believe we have representation currently; I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at that statement.
Now, continuing to dream that this would be Law, you’d have the Senators, who would (hopefully) now be looking out for the States’ interest, balking instead of rubber-stamping on bills knowing their job is on the line.
The States, IMHO, would then start to reign in the abuses of D.C. and actively using the 9th/10th, if not A1S8, to keep from being bled dry.
But, let’s say the State does not have the $$, or pays. I’d think the People thereof would be a might upset about forking over hard-earned $$ for nothing. That to me, would be relief valve #2 to, again, demand a reigning in of D.C. (9th/10th)
If that’s your contention (18th/19th Century model), then we have no need for ANY representation with the technology we have today.
Taken to its logical conclusion, We the People could govern, cast votes, etc. Why limit to physicality, when you have remote conferencing, etc. Say, that we elect people to develop laws/rules that are put up for The People to vote upon.
I mean, it’s not like D.C. follows our wishes, let alone the Constitution.
If the 17th amendment were repealed VA would have 2 conservative senators. That is the whole point.
Again, when your points of what YOU believe will occur if the 17th is repealed run smack into the points of the actual political realities of the present, you get upset and stomp off. I have reviewed the proposals presented by your side earnestly, and I’m telling you they will do nothing to stop the present course of action in DC, but will, in fact, make things even worse. That you have this blind trust in state legislators as paragons of virtue to restore the Republic to the framers intent is appallingly naive.
Put it simply, it goes without saying I don’t trust Democrats voting for me (which I’m stuck with now at the legislative level), I also similarly don’t trust Republicans voting for me, either.
You couldn't tell the difference between the republic, as designed by the founders, and your own bung hole.
You’d have Tom Davis and Bill Bolling as your Senators, two paragons of Conservative virtue. What, you think you’d have an Ollie North or a Dick Obenshain ? That’s what you continually fail to understand on this subject, as do your compatriots in this misguided cause.
BTW, if you’re gonna take cheap shots at me, have the common courtesy to ping me. Not the mark of a Southern Gentleman, sir.
If you are going to defend THE MOST PROGRESSIVE amendment to the Constitution, STFU and back away from the keyboard. (the 16th may be worse, it is a tough call)
With responses like that, and those of your compatriots here, it’s no wonder you’ve lost the argument.
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.