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.
There's a shock.
L
The first is Decision in Philadelphia by the Colliers, a father-and-son team of historians. They avoid strict chronology and cover the convention by "thread". On any given day, several threads were discussed, and by following the discussion, deals and resolution of individual threads, one can see how the Convention progressed and came to the decisions it made.
The second is States' Rights and the Union by Forrest McDonald. Prof. McDonald is a professor of history at the University of Alabama, a Hamiltonian conservative and a man with a magnificent prose style. All his books are worth reading, but especially this one.
Once you have read these, a lot of things suddenly become clearer.
Jackson was censured by Congress during his adminstration, but in the final days of his presidency that censure was stricken from the record.
Jackson's amendment proposals were based on the idea that the country had morphed from the republic of 1787 to a broad-based democracy. One of Jackson's proposals was ratified in 1913 (the subject of this article), and another -- the abolition of the Electoral College -- will be a slam-dunk the next time a presidential election is thrown into the House of Representatives, or we repeat the election of 2000.
That is possible, but the situation has changed. If we went back to this system, there would be many states with two Democrat Senators, but possibly none with two GOP Senators. (Perhaps a few, it would be surprising to see as many as five)
Thank you for the book recommendations. They sound quite interesting. I will plan to read them.
My mistake.
Jackson's amendment proposals were based on the idea that the country had morphed from the republic of 1787 to a broad-based democracy
He was only off by a couple of hundred years. God help us all.
-- the abolition of the Electoral College -- will be a slam-dunk the next time a presidential election is thrown into the House of Representatives,
I don't think it'll take that long.
L
Also, see this recent thread on FR: “A Convention for Proposing Amendments...as Part of this Constitution”
-PJ
That's why the biggest impact of repealing the 17th amendment is campaign finance reform. If you eliminate 33 of the most expensive elections that occur every two years, you eliminate the need to finance them, and in the process you dry up the money flow to the national parties in Washington.
-PJ
You claim:
The 14th Amendment also lead to a hyperexpansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
Could you explain your reasoning please? Congress derives no power over commerce from the 14th, that I can see.
>>Also, the 14th gave us anchor babies.
Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, - all persons born, - are citizens - of the States where they reside.
Thus, - States could refuse to acknowledge an illegal residency while giving birth. Such women & children could be deported from the State as non-citizens. If no other State or U.S. Territory admitted them as citizens, where could they go?
States and local governments have enormous powers under the US Constitution. That they don't use them is a political problem, not a constitutional one
-PJ
I'm not sure that the Senate did look after the interest of states before the Amendment was passed. The growing national economy helped make the Senate more representative of economic interests than of state governments.
What changed most with the Amendment was that Senators, having won state elections, came to think of themselves as presidential timber. Before that, Senators didn't have to be popular or attractive vote-getters and hence were rarely considered as presidential candidates.
No, no ... I wasn’t really disagreeing. I also believe we need to have the States send the Senators to Congress. My comment was more my tirade against an idiocy I see in place today. I believe in term limits and enforce that in the voting booth when I vote on these yahoos.
Somebody once called it the “1913 Revolution”; because the US also got the Federal Reserve.
Nice summary here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/healy1.html
Congress is NOT 1/3 of the government. Each of the branches of the federal government has distinct powers.
Very interesting. Thank you for correcting me.
Nonsense
The states legislation would have a direct say on what happens in DC.
The powers that the federal government have usurped over the years from the states would be vastly reduced and people in general are way more conservative than liberal. We would have a much more conservative Senate and in general a much more conservative government.
The forces that drive our government would be derived from the states
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.