Water does run uphill here near Lake Wales, Fla. they have made no progress in stamping out stupidity in the Democratic Party in Fla. however.
Posted on 09/13/2002 11:35:37 AM PDT by zx2dragon
Water does run uphill here near Lake Wales, Fla. they have made no progress in stamping out stupidity in the Democratic Party in Fla. however.
Many proponents of states' rights will disagree with some of McDonald's conclusions, but it's always good to read both sides of the argument.
Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. It is The Elegant Campaign Finance Reform.
-PJ
The typical reaction to such a suggestion is that "the 17th Amendment brings the Governemnt closer to the People" "we can't do away with it".
My basic response - It brings the Federal Government closer to the States, which are closer to the People.
If these five Justices are deciding cases this way, is that even more reason to ensure that the Senate Judiciary Committee is controled by the GOP as opposed to the Dems?
Think about it.
If you got mo', go with it.
There is no agreement on why the system of electing Senators was changed through the enactment of the Seventeenth Amendment. But there is widespread agreement that the change was to the detriment of the states, and that it played a large part in dramatically changing the role of the national government.
I believe the reason The Reason is "cloudy", is because of ignorance about what happened during Reconstruction, and why the 14th Amendment destroyed federalism. It destroyed federalism because it was so vague, that it essentially gave the US Supreme Court and Congress total veto power over anything a State Legislature decided. This essentally relegated the State legislatures to the sidelines before the 17th Amendment was passed.
I don't think so. 16th and 17th for darn sure. They were part of the terrible trio of the 1909 to 1919 (counting Congressional passage to ratification of each) but the 18th was already repealed. I think most of the rest, save maybe the 24th (No poll tax allowed for elections to federal office) and 26th (18 year old voting in federal elections) are mostly postitive, and mostly concern only properly federal matters, such as Presidential term limits (22nd) and dates of taking office (20th). The 19th, 24th and 26th (and 15th) which all concern who can vote, can be seen as weakening federalism, since prior to their enactment the states set voter qualifications, but can also be seen as protecting or extending the rights of citizens, (15th the "out" races, 19th women, 24th the poor, 26th 18-20 year olds). the 24th and 26th only affect federal elections so I shoudn't say they weakened federalism either.
Zywicki is wrong. There was a great deal of corruption in state legislatures in selecting senators, especially in small and marginal states like RI, NV, WV, NJ. Railroads, banks and maufacturers bribed legislatures. Muckrakers like Ida Tarbell, Lincoln Steffens and David Graham Philips picked up on this in scandalous articles.
Populists and progressives adopted the democratic ideology of direct election. Their feeling was that the people wouldn't be bought off by special interests as legislators were. It all seems very naive now, but when you consider that state legislatures were often apportioned by county rather than by one-man-one-vote in those days, you can see why they complained. Some State Representatives or State Senators from small counties might themselves be accountable to virtually no one, and their votes would essentially be for sale in the Senatorial elections.
You could also argue that the 17th Amendment suited the ambitions of the leaders of the progressive movement. The senate was largely a backwater in the 19th century. States governments and governors had greater power then. "Senate" comes from the Latin for elder, and the idea of the senate as a group of elder statesmen persisted.
The 17th Amendment changed the role of the Senate, the type of person who became a Senator, and the public's view of the Senate. Senators became more ambitious, more hustling and more headline grabbing. They couldn't rely on their friends in the legislature but had to aggressively court the public.
Shifting to direct election also meant that every Senator could be a potential President and every Senate election a dry-run to the Presidency. No Senator went directly to the Presidency before Harding. Kennedy was the other, though dozens or scores have tried, especially since the 17th Amendment was passed.
In theory we could go back to the older system, though it won't happen. The idea of direct election has become so powerful and prominent in the public mind. It's become the source of political legitimacy. Officials who don't have that ballot box mandate take a back seat to those who do.
Were Senators once again chosen by state legislatures the Senate would lose much of its power and once again become a backwater. Congressmen would become more prominent and thumb their popular election in the eyes of the indirectly elected Senate. Governors would become more prominent in Presidential elections, though this doesn't mean that states will have any more power.
That's not an argument against change. There is something to be said for a Senate and House chosen in different ways and representing different understandings of the national interest, but it should be noted that voters probably wouldn't allow an indirectly elected Senate the kind of power it has today.
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.