[Dick Bachert]

SEE THE HIGHLIGHTED -- ALMOST PARANTHETICAL -- BONUS FOR THOSE FAVORING ELIMINATION OF THE INCOME TAX NEAR THE MIDDLE OF DEAN'S PIECE.

[Jaxter]

I saw a bumper sticker that said "When Women Vote, Democrats are Elected". In light of that I like to get rid of the 19th Amendment as well.

[fporretto]

Please see also:

Democracy Is Not Freedom

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[Dick Bachert]

Do wish Dean had mentioned ROGER SHERMAN'S ardent support for senate election by state legislatures, not to mention his "Connecticut Compromise" in the establishment of a bicameral system here.

For those to whom Roger Sherman is unknown, he is the ONLY man to sign ALL FOUR documents surrounding the formation of the United States.

He was also a fervent OPPONENT of PAPER MONEY (author of gold and silver tender portion of Art.1, Sect. 10).

This almost certainly explains WHY he has been chucked down the old memory hole by the ever-vigilant history revisionists.

[BfloGuy]

Thanks for the post.

It's too bad that the rampant populism we have in this country would doom any such attempt -- I'd love to see it, though. It's fascinating to try and imagine the complexion of a Senate chosen by the State Legislatures.

Let's take it one more step and have the New York State Senate chosen by the County Legislatures.

But, back to populism -- I still get into arguments with people who think everyone should vote on everything (via the Internet, of course): true democracy. Wow, can you imagine the budget, then?

[July 4th]

Nice piece. I wrote a law school research paper on this subject last year, and quoted a lot of Zywicki's work. With the 17th Amendment, the states no longer have a representative in the federal government - thus no one to look out for their interests. It's really just that simple...

[weikel]

16th 17th and yes the 19th all need to be axed.

[HamiltonJay]

WOW!! Someone else actually arguing something I have been saying for years!! The direct election of Senators removes completely the State's representation in the federal government and has undermined this nation is so many ways its unfathomable.

The House represents the people, the Senate was meant to represent the states, and the Executive branch represented the federal government, and the Supreme Court played referee... now since this ammenment there is no state representation in the federal government!! It is tragic.

[Jim Robinson]

Great article! Have never seen it stated more clearly. The 17th (and 16th) must go if we are ever to restore our constitutional republic.

And the RATs must be voted out. If we want to contine the Rehnquist Court's work of cutting back federal powers, and protecting state's rights, we need a Republican majority to ensure that the retiring Supreme Court Justices are not replaced by liberals.

BIG BUMP!

[marron]

While we are talking about getting back to the fundamentals, I want to suggest that an important reform will be the return of federal land to the states, along with the agencies that administer the land.

BLM, Forestry, Wildlife, and others should become state agencies, so that their employees answer to the people directly affected by their policies.

Every federal agency should have to underego examination to determine why it should remain federal, rather than be divided into 50 separate state agencies. Some should obviously be eliminated altogether, and some should legitimatedly remain federal.

But the constitution provides that the "default" is state control. Time to get back to that. I realize that if we don't have the muscle to shut down the National Endowment for the Arts, or the National Education Association, breaking up the Forestry Service is going to be tough.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Bookmarked for later reading. Thanks!

[tdadams]

I've often thought that changing to a direct election of Senators fatally undermined the wise intentions of the Constitution's authors. They were very deliberate in structuring our nation's republic.

They did this because they had both the hindsight to avoid what the mess they came from and the foresight to see what America could be.

Unfortunately, where they were deliberate and wise, we in the 20th century have been politically hasty and foolish.

[nicollo]

I posted this over here, but what the hell, I think folks ought to know it over here, too:

Dean writes,

Professor Zywicki... contends, first, that explaining the Seventeenth Amendment as part of the Progressive Movement is weak, at best. After all, nothing else from that movement (such as referendums and recalls) was adopted as part of the Constitution. He also points out that revisionist history indicates the Progressive Movement was not driven as much by efforts to aid the less fortunate as once was thought (and as it claimed) - so that direct democracy as an empowerment of the poor might not have been one of its true goals.

Dean doesn't offer us Prof. Z's proof that "interests" wanted the direct election of Senators. So I won't go there. However, the above paragraph lights up a hole in the theory:

From the way Dean puts it, Prof. Z assumes that there was no opposition to the 17th Amendment. There was tremendous opposition to the initiative, referendum and recall. In fact, that opposition to it was so fierce that the movement's ambitions for federal application died. Its only hope was to go the route of the direct election of Senators: State by State.

Recall that by the time the 17th amendment was adopted, most of the States had already taken up the practice. They tried the same with the recall & etc., and failed.

There was opposition to the 17th amendment -- that unfortunately failed.

Prof. Z is wrong: it was the progressives that pushed and implemented the 17th amendment. Here's a quotation from a primary actor in the movement:

The American people are right in demanding that New Nationalism, without which we cannot hope to deal with new problems. The New Nationalism puts the national need before sectional or personal advantage.
- The New Nationalism
by Theodore Roosevelt
August 31, 1910

I believe in the election of the United States senators by direct vote. Just as actual experience convinced our people that Presidents should be elected (as they now are in practice, although not in theory) by direct vote of the people instead of by indirect vote through an untrammeled electoral college, so actual experience has convinced us that senators should be elected by direct vote of the people instead of indirectly through the various legislatures.
-A Charter of Democracy
by Theodore Roosevelt
February 21, 1912

[AndrewC]

I vote yes. I also think that federal legislators should be limited to 12 years of continuous service then imprisoned.-----

Just kidding about the imprisoned

[bimbo]

The 17th, as well as the 16th Amendment were indeed tragedies for this nation. I believe these Amendments, resulting in power and influence for special interests, could only have passed at that time in the Nation’s history – after two decades of a massive foreign immigration. The naturalized citizens, without a detailed knowledge of the Constitution and American Tradition, were easily swayed by what they considered an “easy simplification.”

( BTW … I got these ideas from conversations with my grandfather when I was young. Although striving to be assimilated, he was one of those easily-swayed immigrant voters. This is also a major reason why I oppose the current massive Immigration: it too will result in massive social and political upheaval.)

[nicollo]

DB, sorry to run away with your thread. Good stuff, though.

Now, what do we say about the 17th in the light of today's situation in NJ?