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.
Yep. Kudos to Ambassodor Keyes and GA Sen. Zell Miller, both men who understand that Senators should represent the states against the federal behemouth, not to be a part of it.
No prob. ;)
Just didn't want to get zotted on my third day. :D
IF, IF, IF, IF, IF,
THE LEGISLATORS were not composed almost entirely of
MONEY GRUBBING LAWWWWWYERRRRRS!!!!!
I'd sure consider it.
We, the populace, have certainly not chosen very well--witness the high percentage of brazen traitors.
Given the mass media influences and the rising
IDIOCY LEVELS of the populace,
having even a flawed buffer between the ignorant and the final vote would be SOME slight insurance . . . one would hope . . . could pretend?
Millionaires like John Corzine deadline shenanigans like Luatneburg and "New Yorkers" like Hillary have me conviced. Repeal the XVII and the XVI while we are at it.
Nonsense it has no effect on federalism.
I'm wondering how you link direct election to the "beginning of the decline of the Republic?" Seems tenuous, at best.
So do I.
It's not the only thing that happened, but it was part of the larger movement of the central government usurping the powers of the states, and the country moving away from the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
Too bad the writer didn't feel compelled to write a piece about Keyes' opponents support for infanticide, a slightly more pressing issue.
How does it make him look bad? That was the way Senators were selected from the time the Constitution was adopted until the populist "reforms" of almost a century ago. The whole point of federalism was that the electorate picked the members of the House, the state legislators picked the Senate, and the Electoral College picked the President. There is absolutely nothing wrong about putting things back the way they were originally supposed to work.
So....Libertarian and "blank" are both polling above 50%?????
How so?
Where we are always indulging and forever learning...
Keyes didn't bring the issue up as far as I know. The reporter did.
Long time lurker, first time poster. :)
As a newbie, I know I'm suspect - whether I started posting on day one or opened an account and let it sleep while I watched for a while.
So I'll try to be on good behavior. :)
It does? Not to me.
Why?
What are you talking about? The popular election of senators has done nothing but create a second House of Representatives. The original system was designed to make one of the legislative houses immune to the whims of the general public.
The usual argument concerns the way in which power is allocated between the federal and state governments. It is thought by many that if Senators are chosen by and answerable to the state legislatures (rather than voters of states), then the Senators will be more reluctant to grant to the federal government powers historically exercised by state governments. To the extent that increases in the power of the federal government are attributable to mere power grabs as opposed to being a reflection of changing realities and changing perceptions of realities, the argument is probably a legitimate one.
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.