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.
Too bad the writer didn't feel compelled to write a piece about Keyes' opponents support for infanticide, a slightly more pressing issue.
I should have voted for him for President.
L
L
Hindsight being 20/20 a lot of folks should have.
The founding fathers did indeed set things up for the congressman to choose the senators. That might have been a good idea then, today, I don't think so.
The states have lost to much power and that can be attributed to the the 17th amendment.
So another reason to vote for him
Regardless, there would be 99 other senators that would laugh him out of the Capitol if he proposed it.
If Keyes wants to win an election of the general population, he will have to learn to stay on target.
Somehow I don't think that this issue is on the top ten things that people are thinking about.
Note that change corresponds with the beginning of the decline of the Republic.
With the direct election of Senators, the states lost all power to limit the Federal Govt.
It is the primary cause of the disintigration of federalism.
Repeal of the ammendment would be a powerful step in getting the government back under control.
So9
The founding fathers set it up right. The 17th should be repealed.
the fact is, that's the way the constitution as originaly written, the states power was robbed by people who were uneducated about how our government works.
Bwa ha ha. Now Keyes doesn't want to discuss his own beliefs during the election for the very seat at issue...
i agree with him. look what the'people' gave us hillary
with any luck, Alan will be able to explain to the dumber amoung us why this would be good.
There isn't any problem with his position, per se. The problem is that the issue is so easy to demagogue, and so relatively unimportant compared to other public policy issues, that Keyes has prudently chosen not to pursue the issue.
The reporter's motivation, however, is crystal clear to me.
Note that change corresponds with the beginning of the decline of the Republic.
No you idiot, it would be going back to the way the Republic was supposed to run...
I, for one, wouldn't have a problem with going back to doing things that way.
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.