Posted on 02/08/2013 3:21:06 PM PST by FatMax
The Founding Fathers knew that in order to ratify a Constitution and preserve the fledgling United States, it was essential that the states have representation in the new Federal government. The legislative branch would be split; the people represented by the directly elected members of the House of Representatives, and each state represented by two officials appointed by the state legislatures. In the new system, the House would represent the people and the Senate would represent the states. Without a federalist system of divided, enumerated, and checked powers between the federal and state governments, no union would be possible - the states, wary of potentially losing their sovereignty to an all-powerful government, would back out, and the world's most free and prosperous nation would never have become a reality.
According to the Founders' vision, so long as the U.S. senator served the state's interest, the senator would remain in power. This way, the upper house could focus on their business, not encumbered by the elections of their lower house counterparts.
But in the early 20th Century, Progressives argued that the federalist arrangement in place fostered corruption and excessive special interests in the Senate. Ignoring the original intent of the Constitution and under the cover of "democracy" (we are in fact a constitutional republic, not a democracy), the federal government quickly ratified the 17th Amendment, establishing the direct election of U.S. senators. States no longer had any representation in Washington, and the amendment paved the way for even more corruption and special interest influence.
Today, we have a Senate that regularly passes legislation contrary to the interests of the states, thanks to the moral hazard introduced by the 17th Amendment. Perhaps most residents in your state opposes national healthcare, but both of your senators voted in favor. Why not? They can't be recalled at moment's notice by the state legislative branch, like they could 100 years ago. All they have to do is get enough votes from their citizens - or perhaps enough voter fraud - and they are safe for six years. Missouri may not want Obamacare and Wyoming may not want tough new gun control laws, but thanks to the 17th Amendment, the state's hands are tied.
What if the 17th Amendment was repealed?
Currently, there are 52 Democrats, 46 Republicans, and two Independents, both of whom caucus with the Democrats. But in state legislative branches there are 51% Republicans and only 46% Democrats - nearly an exact opposite of the party makeup of the U.S. Senate. And that doesn't include the non-partisan unicameral Nebraska state legislature; it isn't a stretch to suggest that a state that virtually always sends Republicans to Washington would somehow depart from the trend.
Below is a map displaying the party makeup of the 50 states and how they are represented in the U.S. Senate. The varying shades of red and blue signify the % of majority control, either Republican (red), or Democrat (blue). Click here or on the image to see the full-size version.
Now, another map - this time red represents a Republican delegation, blue Democrat (or Democrat/Independent as both Independent senators caucus with the Democrats), and purple for a split D/R delegation. Click here or on the image to see the full-size version.
It is likely in a state like Hawaii - with over 90% Democrat majority control of the state houses - would have two Democrat U.S. senators. But few states have such a strong majority control. If the 17th Amendment were to be magically repealed today, returning selection to the states, it is highly probable that states would appoint senators according to party makeup of the state legislatures. A state with more Democrats would be more likely to appoint more Democrats and vise-versa. A state that was more balanced would be forced to compromise and would be more likely to have a split delegation. It is unlikely that South Dakota, a state whose voters elected nearly 80% Republicans, would only appoint one Republican senator. And it is also unlikely that a state like Michigan, where nearly two out of every three state legislators are Republican, would somehow appoint both senators from the minority party.
My theory is that if the 17th Amendment were repealed, states with 67% majority control of the state legislature or more would likely appoint two senators from the majority party, and states with less than 67% majority control would have insufficient leverage and be forced to moderate, nominating one member from each party. Non-partisan Nebraska, with all Republican officials, will stay Republican in this experiment, and both Independent senators are not a factor since they already caucus with the Democrats anyways.
Below is my proposed results, considering the makeup of the U.S. Senate and all 50 state legislatures in January 2013. Click here or on the image to see the full-size version.
According to the hypothesis, Republicans would gain an astonishing 12 seats from Democrats, a strong majority at 58 versus the Democrats' 40. There are many factors that are not accounted for in this study, such as voter fraud, the varying platform and history of each politician, media coverage, etc. But regardless of the varying and impossible-to-predict factors in a system with millions of voters, the overall premise remains: that the stronger majority control a state legislature has, the more likely it is that the state will appoint a member of the majority party. Even if only half of the seats predicted actually change hands, the Republicans would still gain control of the Senate - 52 seats to the Democrats' 46.
Corruption must be checked and the Senate should do the bidding of the state - not the special interests. But a constitutional republic is a rule of laws, not a rule of men, as is a democracy. The Founding Fathers - who had a far greater intelligence than today's politician - dedicated one half of the legislative branch to the states for good reason. By repealing the 17th Amendment, we would restore the federalist system that kept Americans free and prosperous.
Chris Carter
Director, The Victory Institute
It would be easier to pass welfare reform than to take one french fry to the Senators who believe they are entitled.
So some Senators as puppet masters lorded over State Legislatures? Fascinating.
They had become so far removed from the people . . .
Correct. They were designed to be removed from the people. It served our republic well.
that it was what prompted a nationwide reform movement that would force some level of accountability.
Accountability? To whom? The people? That is for the House. Democratic tyranny, which describes our consolidated government quite well, is still tyranny.
State appointed Rinos or even rat Senators would think twice about screwing state budgets with Utopian social justice dreams such as Medicaid and Obamacare. When my dirtbag Senator Bill Nelson (rat-fl) voted for Obamacare, he knew he had two years for people to forget and he could deflect any criticism with his demagogic lectures on evil pubbies that would take away their freebies.
The history of our republic reflects the wisdom of state appointed senators and the idiocy of popularly elected senators.
If we're going to get a corrupt Senate either way, I'd far prefer a corrupt Senate on the side of the states than a corrupt Senate on the side of the Feds.
Here is a link to the pdf file.
-
Ulysses at the Mast:
Democracy, Federalism, and the Sirens’ Song of the Seventeenth Amendment
http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1365&context=facpub
-
So true.
Thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten entirely Ulysses at the Mast: Democracy Federalism and the Sirens Song.
And how many high-minded states are there enlightened enough to be entrusted to do what's right, and elect those high-minded people accordingly ? You would be lucky to end up with a single member of the Senate that would be unapologetically trumpeting Conservative, pro-Constitutional values. This is just one more office that you'd be entrusting to goverment workers. I don't want them electing my Senator. I do not trust my state legislators, period.
Sure there was corruption, but look into the scale of corruption pre- and post-1913. Congress has spent so much money in the past few years that we are over $100 trillion in debt, considering unfunded liabilities. 100 years ago, the national debt was $2.9 billion. Adjusted for inflation, that’s only $65 billion in today’s dollars.
You portray the state legislators as incompetent, but I say that the U.S. would be far better off picking 535 names at random from the phone book to run Congress - much less legislators that govern states that (compared to the federal government and excluding California and Illinois) are in relatively good shape.
And the campaign in favor of direct election of senators was a conspiracy - a democratic conspiracy. We aren’t a democracy, but a constitutional republic. There are democratic elements to our society, but pure democracy strips the rights of the individual just as easily as a tyrant - it’s just a matter of procedure.
Granted, by its passage, the 17th Amendment became as legitimate as the rest of the Constitution. There is nothing wrong with having a logical debate on whether the 17th Amendment is the best path forward for society.
Based on history and human nature, the amendment paved the way for corruption and special interest influence on a scale that was impossible to reach under the original system.
But when you strip the state’s ability to instantly recall U.S. senators that are not legislating in the state’s interests, you undermine the federalist system of shared powers between the state and federal government, and essentially create a new - and more corruptible - government.
And it’s “As one WHO has...” not “As one WHOM has...” If you’re going to insult the author, at least use proper grammar.
My point exactly. We need more checks in government, not less. Empowering the states is a good thing - that's why the Founders designed it that way. People are no more or less corrupt today than they were 5,000 years ago. Let's have a national debate on the subject and chose the best path forward.
Exactly. And it was becoming so brazen by the turn of the 20th century that it spurred on the movement for popular elections. It was the right thing to do.
"Correct. They were designed to be removed from the people. It served our republic well."
Until such time as they became self-serving, of which became an epidemic by the middle part of the 19th century.
"Accountability? To whom? The people? That is for the House. Democratic tyranny, which describes our consolidated government quite well, is still tyranny."
If you consider the current method tyranny, I consider your notion to be the same. You're not returning to the Founding Fathers, you're simply eliminating accountability and entrusting it to government workers. These are the last people that deserve to have their powers enhanced. They should be scared of us, but I am scared of them.
"State appointed Rinos or even rat Senators would think twice about screwing state budgets with Utopian social justice dreams such as Medicaid and Obamacare."
That you sincerely believe that is what makes your notion so misguided. It's not going to happen.
"The history of our republic reflects the wisdom of state appointed senators and the idiocy of popularly elected senators."
The history of our republic reflects that legislatively-elected Senators failed to live up to the Founders' notions, instead leading to bossism and corruption, and it was why the 17th was precipitated.
Fortunately, I don’t. If you find Texas being represented by Senators Karl Rove and David Dewhurst to be what you desire, that begins to give you an idea of what would come from our most Conservative states with a 17th repeal.
The state government is anything BUT local. It would take me hours to drive to the state capitol. Many state governments are larger and more powerful than the governments of various nations. If you want to enpower local government, repealing the 17th certainly wouldn't help because the state government is controlled by the big cities. My village and township government (the ACTUAL "locally elected" politicians) get virtually no representation in the federal, state, or even the county government.
No thanks. Enjoy your world, hopefully alone.
And how, by moving the Senate even further to the left (which is what the 17th would do), would that remedy this horrendous situation ?
"You portray the state legislators as incompetent, but I say that the U.S. would be far better off picking 535 names at random from the phone book to run Congress - much less legislators that govern states that (compared to the federal government and excluding California and Illinois) are in relatively good shape."
I'd rather have 535 people chosen that run a business and meet a payroll. You could just as easily choose 535 people that are parasites. But this is a flight of fancy, in any event.
"And the campaign in favor of direct election of senators was a conspiracy - a democratic conspiracy. We aren’t a democracy, but a constitutional republic. There are democratic elements to our society, but pure democracy strips the rights of the individual just as easily as a tyrant - it’s just a matter of procedure."
I know what we are. And as I said above, unless you are prepared to begin to enact basic requirements on precisely which individuals should be allowed to cast votes (which I think is an excellent idea) to meet what was advocated by the Founders, you're not only not going to get a better Senate, you will make it worse.
"Based on history and human nature, the amendment paved the way for corruption and special interest influence on a scale that was impossible to reach under the original system."
It was already happening before the 17th.
"But when you strip the state’s ability to instantly recall U.S. senators that are not legislating in the state’s interests, you undermine the federalist system of shared powers between the state and federal government, and essentially create a new - and more corruptible - government."
The kind of recall you speak of, more of a gentleman's agreement as an elected official, stopped in the early 19th century. In rare few instances, once you got your 6-year term, you served it out, unless the Good Lord called you home.
How would it look? There would be a wholesale rejection of just about everything today’s libs believe in, and the democrat party would be much more conservative than it is now.
This is not the first time you couldn’t reply to my points on this subject. If you’re so adamant on repeal of the 17th, you need to be able to argue your cause. Throwing a fit, taking your ball and going home isn’t going to win your case.
Except that it wouldn’t.
Google “article the first,” also known as The Congressional Apportionment Amendment.
It is the very first amendment proposed to the constitution back in 1789 and is one of the last remaining original constitutional amendments proposed by our Founders that has not been ratified.
During FDR’s presidency, the number of Representatives was arbitrarily frozen at 435. Prior to then, every 10 years, after the Census, the number of Representatives increased according to the population numbers. The spirit of the congressional apportionment amendment was followed, but it was thrown aside in the name of politics.
If you read the amendment, it would require one representative for every 50,000 citizens. If you’re doing the math, that means over 6,000 representatives by the current population numbers. I’ve proposed that we create National Congressional Districts (I.e. Atlanta for the southeast, St. Louis for the Midwest, etc.) where the district representatives meet via networking software to do the business of the federal government.
It would mean TRUE representation where money can’t necessarily buy a seat and every citizen’s voice could be heard.
It’s written as the very first amendment to our constitution and was obviously important to our Founders. It would revolutionize our government and would absolutely be met with derision by our media. It missed ratification by one state at the time. Ironically, I believe that state was Connecticut.
Oooh, burn!
Imagine what the pork-hungry, power-hungry legislators of the state assemblies would put in the Senate. Would the situation really be any less communistic?
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.