Posted on 08/13/2004 11:22:59 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
SPRINGFIELD - If Illinois voters elect Alan Keyes to the U.S. Senate, he'd prefer they not get another chance.
Keyes, a Maryland Republican who just moved to Calumet City for the campaign, supports returning to a system abolished nearly a century ago of letting state legislators pick U.S. senators rather than voters.
In fact, he's dubbed the constitutional amendment that switched to public election of senators one of the country's greatest mistakes, vowing in past campaigns to re-examine it if voters ever sent him to Washington, D.C.
"He does still support repeal of the 17th Amendment," Keyes campaign adviser Dan Proft said Thursday, but added it is "not near the top of his agenda."
"This is not to be a centerpiece item of his legislative agenda should he be elected," Proft added. He described it as an issue befitting debate in "the hallowed halls of academia" or a "PBS special."
Obama contends the switch to voters was good for democracy.
"I certainly trust the people of Illinois and other states to choose who they want to represent them in the U.S. Senate. That is the very basis of our democracy," Obama said. "I would hope that Alan Keyes would trust those voters too."
Before approval of the 17th Amendment in 1913, state lawmakers picked their U.S. senators. The amendment moved that power to the people. Illinois supported the switch.
Although his aides say it is not a top issue now, Keyes highlighted the topic in the past. During a discussion with a caller on the Feb. 19, 1999, episode of Keyes' radio program, he said the change ignored the fundamental difference the nation's founding fathers wanted between the U.S. House and Senate. Originally, the House represented the people, while the Senate was considered to represent state governments.
"And we changed that, disregarded that, and I think it's hurt us deeply," Keyes said, according to a program transcript.
The push in the late 1800s and early 1900s to publicly elect senators was provoked by lingering impasses at the state level to name senators and questionable appointments.
During one of his presidential bids, Keyes named the switch to public voting for senators as one of the federal government's biggest mistakes along with income taxes and the Federal Reserve Bank. A news account in the Riverside Press-Enterprise from a 1995 fund-raiser in California includes Keyes promising to re-examine those topics if elected.
Asked about the irony of the situation, Proft replied: "You run under the system that's in place."
Of course, if the old system was in place Keyes would be a political underdog. Democrats control the Illinois House and Senate.
The Dims have announted Obama as their "rising star." I would vote for ANYONE for the opportunity to "pee in their cornflakes." Supporting KEYES is the best chance to whizz a little on them.
Perhaps you should look into the reasons the founding fathers had for doing it this way.
The House was to represent the citizens, the Senate was to represent the states.
We may still have gone down this road of Federalism even with states controlling the Senate, but I don't think so.
Now you have both the house and the Senate trying to buy votes with my tax dollars.
I agree the switch to popular election of U.S Senators undermined the federal nature of our constitutional system. Under the old method, Senators where supposed to be ambassadors for their states, defending their interests and injecting reason into the hot-headed passions from a popularly elected House Of Representatives. Still, it won't become a reality any time soon and Alan merely represents conservative thinking on the subject - its one of the goals to which Free Republic subscribes to by the way. This Chicago liberal writer is making it seem like its something not to be mentioned in polite company. This from people opposed to ANY reform that will limit the power of an overreaching federal government is just too much to bear.
As far as the popular election of senators states manged to screw themselves at about the same time they decided to screw the people with income tax.
"Just cause 70% of the people thinks it is fine, doesn't make it right, just means 70% of the people are wrong."
True, but what's your point?
In the context of a political campaign, talking about the wrongness of people's views is wrong way to go. Expressing support for something that's nobody's #1 issue and that will never happen is non-helpful to a campaign. Keyes' spokesman played it right - it's not a priority. Do you want Keyes to goes down in flames standing up for principles that most Illinois voters dont 'get'?
Wouldnt it be better he runs on issues they understand?
Yes, it's agravating that this writer doesn't understand the facts about the 17th Amendment. Either that, or he is intentionally trying to mislead people . . . hmmmm.
Apparently, though, it's an understatement to say that Freepers have wanted to repeal the 17th Amendment for a long time. Found the following statement on the "About" section of Free Republic.
"We call for the repeal of the 17th amendment, which will reverse the independence of the Senate and reestablish the Senate as a representative of the State governments, as intended by the Founding Fathers. This arrangement was intended to be a critical check against illegal federal expansion over the States, and the people residing in the various States, and will act to return the powers not granted to the federal government, as enumerated in the Constitution, to the states."
Phil Gramm would NEVER have been elected to the U.S. Senate, since the Texas legislature was majority Democrat until 2002.
Why in hell would his campaign even discuss this? It makes Keyes look goofy.
And this is bad because ....?
The founders knew what they were doing. They were also smart enough to predict that power hungry control freaks would infiltrate the government and turn a free republic into a deceptive conterfeit thereof.
The 17th Amendment was a big step in that direction.
Response: Not in America 2004 AD.
Comment:Take a look at California's legislature! If the people of California had anything left in them they would go to Sacramento and take the wretches out naked. After taking them out naked the people would then whip them the length of the State.
I got the impression that some reporter dug up an old issue and ask the spokesman about it. There doesn't seem to be any indication that Keyes himself is "losing focus" here.
In post 10, someone aledges Keyes is (or would be) not "staying focused" to discuss lesser issue like this...and five posts later you imply he's running from in by not discussing it...both of which are based on comments from a spokesman, not from Keyes himself.
Methinks certain people are more looking for bash-material than trying to post intellegent comments.
I give Harry the benifit of the doubt, however, because his tone was not so derisive.
I would also nominate the Incorporation doctrine of 1947 as the perhaps final nail in the coffin. It seems to me a series of events from 1861 to 1947 could be cited, with those 3 being perhaps the most pivotal
Yo, John...do TRY to pay attention, eh?
As has been repeatedly pointed out - the article doesn't present any current comment from Keyes on the subject. Dude went fishing in his past for something "radical", found it, and ask a spokesman about it - a spokes who told him, in so much polite language, "Buzz off, no one is talking about that now."
If you're gonna be a bahser, at least be a competent basher, okay?
So do I. Democracy is only a means to an end, it is liberty that is the ultimate goal. Legislators voting for Senators keeps the federalist system intact. Remember, the state legislators are chosen by the people. So the general ideas go along with the will of the populace (I.E. voters vote Republican legislators = republican legislators vote republican senator), but the Senator has to answer to the will of the state government, not just the people.
When i tell my peers (college students) my opinions on this i usually get gawking looks. To drive my point home, i bring up an issue that resonates well with them. The 1984 National Minimum Age Act which established the 21 year old age limit would never have passed had it not been for the 17th Ammendment. Congress had to blackmail states with withholding Federal Highway funds to coerce them to establish a 21 year old age limit because the Constition limits Congress from that authority. Any Senator that voted for any issue that blackmailed the states like that would have been dumped quickly if they had to answer to State Legislators. If they have to answer to the mob... well thats another story.
Because of the people in Congress these days, that's why!
Do you want Maxine Waters and Henry Waxman picking CAlifornia's Senators? I don't.
No you idiot, it would be going back to the way the Republic was supposed to run...
If I'm not mistaken, that's what RJ is saying.
Yes, when the members of the House were expected to be honorable men. Do you want Maxine Waters and Henry Waxman picking Senators for CA?
I should have read all of them first.
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.