Replies

We are splitting hairs.

This is a red-herring argument. The supposed conflict between the 17th Amendment and Article V is a non-issue.

Even if the argument is one of varying state legislative control over how the Senator votes between those desiring to choose their Senator and those ratifying the popular election of Senators, there is nothing to stop a rogue Senator in either case.

One can argue that the threat of not renewing a Senator's seat in the next term is stronger in the former case, but that is no guarantee that a Senator will actually vote differently. Once there, the Senator remains for six years to vote as he or she pleases.

-PJ

The supposed conflict between the 17th Amendment and Article V is a non-issue.

Only in the sense that those in government ignore constitutional issues and will ignore this one also. But if that is enough to make this issue not worth discussing then why discuss anything?

Even if the argument is one of varying state legislative control over how the Senator votes between those desiring to choose their Senator and those ratifying the popular election of Senators, there is nothing to stop a rogue Senator in either case.

Nothing except the threat of losing his seat. I think there is a big difference between a big media popularity contest six years ago versus a set of commitments made to a small number of powerful men who are now going to review the Senator's performance.

One can argue that the threat of not renewing a Senator's seat in the next term is stronger in the former case,

Thank you.

but that is no guarantee that a Senator will actually vote differently. Once there, the Senator remains for six years to vote as he or she pleases.

One method of reelection involves standing for another election, where most of the public don't even remember the last election. The other is reappointment by the same small group of people who appointed you in the first place. I think we could expect a big difference in a Senator's behavior during his term of office. I think Senators would tend to be much more willing to stand up for the independence of their state legislatures. The current crop of Senators have completely abandoned that fight.

There is little need to speculate how state appointed senators would or would not go rogue. Just look at our history. In the aggregate, the pre-17th federal government, even after the 14th amendment, respected state sovereignty. In post-17th America, government consolidated in one city, and the eventual decline of the states into little more than petty provinces was guaranteed.