Posted on 06/05/2007 10:55:19 AM PDT by K-oneTexas
Think Political Parties Are Destroying America? Thank the 17th Amendment!
by Todd Huston, Senior Writer
June 5, 2007
If you think our nation is being ruined by the two party system you should consider the huge mistake we made in 1913 by changing our Constitution to allow American citizens to vote our Senators into office. In the beginning and until 1913 we did not elect our Senators to that chamber as the Founders originally meant for them to be individually appointed to office by the legislatures of the various states.
That mistake is the17th Amendment. Previous to 1913 Senators were appointed by the state governments to represent them in Congress but after passage of the 17th amendment Senators were from that point forward elected by the people at the ballot box in a general election.
At first hearing, it seems like a good idea full of populist “power to the people” and a way to “fix” what had seemed like an error in the original Constitution. The cure, however, has proven worse than the disease and made the old saying, "all politics is local" into a lie at long last.
As originally conceived by our founders, the members of the House of Representatives were to represent the needs of the people of their regions or states, which is why they are elected by the citizens of a state. Senators, on the other hand, were to represent the state legislatures in Congress to assure that Federal power did not usurp state sovereignty and were, therefore, appointed by those same state legislatures accordingly.
But now that the Senators are elected to their position we have essentially eliminated any say that state governments might have in matters Federal simply because those same Senators are no longer beholden to their state legislatures.
It is true that there was a problem with the original way we placed senators in Congress, granted. Previous to the 17th amendment state legislatures could often be found in such a closely split balance between parties that a choice of a senator was a political impossibility, the Parties not being able to agree on a candidate. The consequence of this deadlock was that sometimes states would find themselves without a senator sitting in Washington and, therefore, without representation there. Even in the very first Congress New York found itself without a senator for a period of time because they could not agree on a candidate due to a deadlocked legislature. The problem really became troublesome after the Civil War and just until the Amendment was proposed. Delaware once went four years at a stretch without a Senator. This was the problem the 17th Amendment was meant to remedy.
Like I said, at first this seemed like an ideal solution. Let the people vote and take the burden off the state legislatures and, in this way, assure that there will always be the requisite number of Senators sitting in Congress.
Unfortunately, we have seen the result of this fix to the Constitution, an act akin to putting a Band-Aid on a case of skin cancer allowing the malignancy to grow instead of getting rid of it.
By opening Senators to election by the people we took the influence of the state right out of the Federal government. Since the Senators themselves were no longer directly responsible to the state legislature, but supposedly to the people who elected them, they no longer had to pay strict attention to what the state government needed or wanted. The Senators were autonomous from the state legislature and have since gravitated to adherence to strict party line making them beholden to the national parties and not the state OR the people who elected them. They now campaign on the "national issues" of the day as this last election demonstrated clearly and as many of the elections since the 1980's have similarly demonstrated.
Such campaigning on party issues was pioneered by the Democrats in the 1930's as they tried to advance the New Deal policies of the FDR administration. It was made into an art form by the Johnson and Clinton administrations with the Republicans following suit starting with the Reagan era and solidified in Newt Gingrich's '94 elections. National parties have since made strict national issues or planks which have become a litmus test for party candidates and for party money to be bestowed upon them for their campaigns by the national organizations.
This, in turn, has totally eliminated state control or representation in the halls of Congress and that has unleashed a torrent of Federal rules and regulations that have hamstrung the states and reduced them to vassals of the Federal government.
Senators who are beholden to the national parties make it less likely that they will differ too greatly from the party line thereby not giving them much latitude to act independently or to be influenced by regional concerns. This is increasing year after year.
The issues Senators run on have been thoroughly nationalized and so has the expectations of the electorate of just who is and who is not a “proper” member of any particular party. For instance, abortion and gun control have become national standards for party affiliation whereas they used to originate from regional standards. Al Gore used to be against abortion and gun control before he became a Democrat on the "national stage" and from the point he announced a run for the presidency. In the early 1990's he made a 180-degree flip flop on those issues for no other reason than to be compatible with the national policies of the Democratic Party. He did this while still a Senator, it should be remembered. He certainly did not change his opinions out of introspection but rather to "fit in" with the directives of the national party and to assure himself the attention and support of that national party.
Joe Lieberman is a perfect example of this problem. He was forced to run as an “independent Democrat” against an upstart candidate who didn’t even come close to representing the needs and wishes of the people of Connecticut but one who fit in perfectly with the Democratic Party leadership. The Party alone tried to chose Connecticut’s candidate quite regardless of what they wanted.
Another aspect of this problem is the amount of campaign donations that come from outside any particular state to fund a Senate run. Lieberman’s unrepresentative opponent was heavily funded by forces well outside the state instead of by the citizens who would actually elect him to office. This has the effect of driving the costs of running for office ever higher in key races.
This nationalization of issues also has the unintended consequence of making an independently minded national candidate for president difficult to elect or to even be heard because the parties themselves have become stronger than the states making them far more the arbiter of who is “allowed” to run for office than the people. This has made the truly conservative Republican a pariah in the national party as was evident by the near total exclusion of the excellent and intelligent Alan Keyes in the 2000 presidential election as well as similarly squelching the chances of a far left candidate like Ralph Nader.
Perhaps it is time to revisit the 17th amendment and place power back in the hands of the states as they determine who will represent them and, in turn, us in the halls of the Senate of the United States.
Text of the 17th Amendment The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
Warner Todd Huston is a senior writer for The New Media Journal. He also serves as an NMJ Radio Headline News Roundtable Editor, a free lance writer, graphic designer and works in Desktop Publishing. Like every man when young, Mr. Huston was sure that Conservatives were inhumane, ignorant of history and greedy...then he grew up.
ping
How so?
But if we repealed it now, the Senate would lurch left.
It still has to pass the Senate though.
'Works for me. Thanks, K
w, You were right. Didn't I say though I thought is was through the amendment process? It was bad. It was very bad. It should be sent to the cornfield.
As with all Wikipedia articles, do additional reading to protect yourself from any bias that might be in the article. The article has some external links at the bottom.
You're right. They'd probably come up with some stupid Bill promising amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens or try to defund the Iraq war or something.
L
That assertion could lead to a fiery debate.I think the 16th -19th are all contenders,with the 14th not far behind.Of course the 18th was repealed,and the 19th should have been part of the repeal package.I don't know what was in the water during that decade.The 19th aqmendment is the one i would overturn if I had my way,even over the income tax.Women and government mix like oil and water."Welcome to kindergarden" is what signs should say greeting visitors to this country.
First the government convinced women to go out and compete against their husbands in the work place,and now we face the specter of federal government officials wasting our time and money discussing "the children".Repeal the 19th amendment!
Good article. I am also a very strong supporter of term limits for ALL elected offices and use of staff/office to seek re-election should be prohibited.
The Bill of Rights itself was hotly debated during the convention and ratifying process.I think we'd have been better off without it.Why,for example,would we prohibit the government from doing what it hasn't the power to do?This could only lead to the assertion that the government has powers that are not explicitly stated in the constitution.And so it has...
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."Federalist # 41 Madison
You sure you’re a conservative?
I read an interesting paper years ago that said that it would be wise for women not to vote. It basically present these aruguments. Government is at its core, an instrument of force, best suited for mostly it's primary role, collective self defense (in an utterly brutal manner if needed). Men have traditionally been the warriors.
Women by nature, are nurturing. As such, if women start to gain power (say) over policy, they will try and make government do nurturing tasks. The result is an ever growing government taking aways functions of the marketplace. He stated the end result would be a slow decline due to Socialism being imposed. He stated that women and society would benefit if women didn't vote. I wish I could remember the author. It was from many decades ago (before PC)[Note: these are not my thoughts, just relaying what I read :) ]
Thank you for the most cogent response so far on this thread. Exactly right. Our Founders has great distrust of democracies. Madison has some very devastating critiques of democracies. It is a shame how the public schools have indoctrinated so many against liberty and limited government.
bump for later reading.
In his first State of the Union message in December 1829, Andrew Jackson asked Congress to send 3 constitutional amendments to the states for ratification.
None of Jackson's proposed amendments made it through Congress.
It should be noted that these ideas were percolating within government long before Debs.
and on top of this, I think one of the dumbest things that happened was the changes to the primary system, that took the nominations out of the “smoke filled rooms” and put them in the public’s hand. The only ones that have won from that mess are the media and advertisers.
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.