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.
Correct. The principle is one of separation of powers.
ingpay
Thank you. All I can say is there are too many subjects and too little time.
I am up on Dr. Keyes 1st A. fight behind Judge Moore and I watched as many Keyes programs as I could when he had a TV show but I'm afraid I'm not totally up to speed on him. My bad too.
My first awareness of him was from his debate speech in 2000. I was stunned. I wanted him for President on the spot.
Oh, as for not knowing Dr. Keyes supports repealing the 17th A. I should have added "I'm not surprised."
Good point.
The appropriate response 8-)
Maxine Waters wouldn't be doing it. It would be the state legislators' job (who generally are more conservative than national politicians) and one thing you just about guarantee is that with so many state politicians wanting the job, one or two terms is all that you are going to spend as a US Senator. Also, there are currently more states' legislatures controlled or split by the GOP to easily swing the balance to the Republicans.
Legislative appointment of Senators was designed to minimize Democracy. State powers were deliberately reduced under the Constitution. The reason the Convention was called was specifically to increase the power of the National government and REDUCE the powers of the States.
Federalism is a structure wherein the States have NO power over National issues. Their powers are confined to affecting issues WITHIN the state boundaries and NOWHERE else.
Senators never represented state interests any more than Representatives did under the actual design of the constitution. Only by considering the State interest as viewed by the Legislature as somehow different than the State interest as viewed by the electorate could this method of appointment produce a divergent result from direct election.
An objective examination of the role of the Senate as stated in the Constitution clearly shows that it was concerned with the Long Term interests of the Nation. There is not one word in it pointing to a primary concern with state interests.
So you would rather have the wierdos who have been selecting them? They sure have picked some winners. BTW, you are confused, the Senators were elected by the STATE legislatures, not the US legislatures.
The founders were right, you are wrong.
They shouldn't be elected.
They should be chosen the legislature of each state.
I agree.
Now we have the Senate Royal Princes who are lifers and never get voted out.
It wasn't supposed to be like that - it doesn't work, and the amendment made it worse.
This would be a good thing.
I disagree. This would be a great thing.
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.