Call to Repeal the 17th Amendment

Great Debates
1

Like a precocious teenager who envisions himself so much smarter than his “old-fashioned” parents, only to learn after wrecking the family car that old dad isn’t so dumb after all, so it is with contemporary American society.

Contemporary American society, through what could be described as an arrogance of wisdom, has disregarded of the tenets of republicanism established by the framers of the Constitution (Article IV, section 4), and has succumbed to the annointed’s lofty rhetoric extolling the virtues of democracy. Problem is, the arrogance of wisdom has prevented many from yet recognizing that “Old Dad” wasn’t so dumb afterall.

America’s experiment with democracy, that the Founding Fathers warned against, can be traced directly to the post Civil War era of Reconstruction. The primary objective of Reconstruction was to reduce the independence of the states by moving away from the principles of republicanism in favor of federalism.

Beginning in the latter nineteenth century and carrying over into the early twentieth century, when President Woodrow Wilson lead America into World War I with the slogan, “to make the world safe for democracy”, the idea of democracy became inculcated into the mindset of most Americans as the ideal political system. The democratization of America culminated in 1913 with the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Prior to the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, United States Senators were not elected by popular vote, but rather, were appointed by the legislatures of their respective states. This system allowed the states leverage to limit the power of the Federal government and prevent it from evolving into the bloated bureaucratic beast it is today, with it’s tentacles entangled into every facet of our individual daily lives.

The Senate is the most powerful deliberative body in the United States. Without Senate approval, proposed legislation cannot become law, presidential appointments cannot hold office and, most importantly, treaties with foreign nations and global entities such as the United Nations cannot be enacted. When the state legislatures appointed their representatives to the United States Senate, the states both retained their independence and restrained the federal government with Senators that held an allegiance to their states.

The state legislatures, in handing over their senatorial appointments to “the will of the people”, have shifted the balance of power to the Federal government and has, in effect, transformed the Senate into an extension of the Exectutive Branch of government.

This metamorphosis of the Senate has aided in the passage of “progressive” legislation and social programs deemed popular with the voters, which, in turn, has transformed highly populated urban centers into partisan voting blocks that wield their influence on both the state and national levels and, in general, has facilitated the incremental socialization of America.

Perhaps, it is time to consider the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. Were Senators appointed by the state legislatures, as originally intended, several benefits would be immediately recognized.

First and foremost, a senator’s allegiance would be insulated from campaign contributions. This alone would go along way in solving the problem of “campaign finance reform” and the undue influence of lobbyists, both foreign and domestic, that do not have America’s best interest at heart.

Other perceived benefits of senatorial appointments would be that personal wealth could not buy a seat in the Senate, a la Jon Corzine and personal celebrity, a la Hillary Clinton, would not be a qualification for office. As an added bonus, a president would actually be removed from office for committing “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

However, it will probably be a difficult task getting the genie back inside the bottle. Barring a constitutional convention, which would leave the potential for the altering of the Constitution as a whole, it would require two-thirds of the Senate to ratify a repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. As the situation currently stands, there just doesn’t seem to be that much integrity in the Senate.

George C. Collinsworth

A liberal’s worst nightmare; A redneck with both a library card and a concealed-carry permit.

2

I would be truly interested in seeing the convoluted, nay, tortured logic that brings the Senate into the Executive branch by having the senators elected by the populace.

3

Since state legislatures are notably corrupt (at least the General Assembly in Illinois is), the money that now flows to US Senate candidates directly would just flow to members of the state legislatures. How does that help produce better Senators? Also, nice dig at two Democratic Senators, while failing to list any of the many Republican Senators that have gained their seats either through wealth or celebrity. (For example, Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois or Elizabeth Dole of NC.)

4

Your factual premises here are rather questionable, Razorsharp. Congress proposed the 17th amendment in May 1912, during President Taft’s adminisration. The amendment was ratified in April 1913, only five weeks after President Wilson took office, and more than a year before the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian heir Archduke Franz Ferdinand in June 1914 set in motion the events leading up to World War I. President Wilson did not deliver his speech saying that “the world must be made safe for democracy” until April 1917. It is difficult seeing how a speech delivered in 1917 could have influenced the adoption of an amendment that had already been a part of the Constitution for four years.

5

“in effect”… (de facto)

All you have to do is to observe the partisan voting habits of Senators associated with the party that occupies the White House.

6

I would venture to say that Elizabeth Dole’s credentials for occupying a Senate seat far outweigh those of Hillary Clinton. Wouldn’t you?

7

So, politicians vote with their party? You think that that phenomenon didn’t start until the 17th amendment?

8

Let’s see… I believe I wrote: "America’s experiment with democracy, that the Founding Fathers warned against, can be traced directly to the post Civil War era of Reconstruction. The primary objective of Reconstruction was to reduce the independence of the states by moving away from the principles of republicanism in favor of federalism.

Beginning in the latter nineteenth century and carrying over into the early twentieth century,…"

9

Yes, I read that part. I was taking issue with the excerpt that I actually quoted.

10

The fact is, Razorsharp, our nation’s history has tended toward increasing the peoples’ influence upon who gets elected: from giving blacks the vote, to giving women the vote, to lowering the voting age to eighteen. If the 17th Amendment were repealed, it would be the first time the peoples’ ability to chooses it’s elected officials had been decreased. that would be a real shame.

11

So, razorsharp, you think that the direct election of senators moved the Senate to the left? Not really. The “Progressive Era” produced a large number of Senators that would be regarded as “left” by our standards, and all of them were elected by state legislatures. In fact, had the election of Senators by the state legislature continued into the present day:

Republicans would have lost the New York Senate seat they won in 1980, 1986, amd 1992.

Republicans would have won Senate races in California that they lost in 1968 and 1994, true, but they would have also lost the seats they won in 1964, 1976, 1982, and 1988.

As I recall, virtually none of the Republican Senators that have been elected in the South since 1964 (and even most of those in office today) wouldn’t have been elected by the state legislators, which were (and, in many states, still are) Democrats.

The Reps have won every Senate race in Pennsylvania (except the 1991 special election) since 1968. They would have lost AT LEAST the seats they won in 1982, 1986, 1988, and 1992 if the legislature had picked the Senators.

(Not that the abolishment of the 17th Amendment would have been completely bad for the Reps. In New Jersey, where the Reps have not won a Senate race since 1972, they would have won in 1988, 1994, 1996, and 2000 if the legislature had picked the Senators.)

12

You mean like right now, when the House of Representatives is acting like Bush’s buttmonkey while it’s the SENATE that is opposing and modifying his demands?

13

Except for the time that Wyoming took away women’s voting rights.

Governor Quinn, since you did not state so, I assume in this quote and the rest of its post that you are assuming the legislature would have voted along party lines and the majority prevail?

If so, while I would agree with you that such an outcome would be likely, I wouldn’t think it would be a given.

My issue with the 17th Amendment is that it focused the electorate from that time to this on “top-down” solutions to government, i.e., If we can get ‘our man’ into the top post, everything will be OK." The problem with such an attitude is that the top offices get approved a great deal of power which can be “abused” when the opposing group takes over. I believe such approaches are holdovers from a monarchial society and are anathema to democracy. I further believe that this attitude has led to the cries coming out of Washington of “hyper-pluralism”, the idea that opposing factions have such a strong hold on various controls of government so firmly, nothing can get done at all.

The original structure of government was created to protect it from the shifting whims of the electorate. If the public felt one way, one season, and another way the next, such changes would be reflected at the federal level only in the House. The Senate was (and to some extent, in spite of direct popular election, still is) protected by such forces by the fact that for a complete changeover in power to occur, the attitude of the total electorate would have to remain consistent long enough to elect state legislature majorities of similar attitude through three election cycles. I presume the Founding Fathers felt comfortable in declaring such a situation to reflect a decisive change in the will of the people.

With the adoption of the 17th Amendment, and the general trend toward states having parties submit a state’s-worth of unnamed Electors committed to their candidate for the voters to choose en masse, both the Legislative and Executive branches have been weakened by having to pander to the masses.

On the other hand, we can not forget the reason for the populist movements at the turn of the 20th century that led to the 17th’s passage: state and local governments were frequently corrupt, leading the people to assume that gaining more control of the federal government was their only hope.

I don’t think we could just suddenly repeal the 17th without the assurance of strong measures at the state and local level to reduce corruption. I do think, though, that people might tend to get more involved in politics if their concerns were kept local. Hell, they might even be able to tell you their House Representative is.

14

Quote: As an added bonus, a president would actually be removed from office for committing “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

I don’t follow your logic here. Are you implying that Clinton would’ve been found guilty by the Senate if the senators had beenn appointed but the state legislatures? Is that because you think there would’ve been more GOP members of the Senate?

15

So it only becomes a part of the executive on those occasions when the Senate majority is of the same party as the president (an event which has been not true on multiple occasions in the last 25 years).
(And your claim fails easily in noting that the Democratic-controlled Senate of Clinton’s first years did not rubber stamp his agenda.)

16

But, an event that* has* been true on multiple occasions.

An exception to the rule, and a wise one, I might add.

As originally intended, the Senate was supposed to be the States representation within the FedGov, where the House of Represenatives was to be the peoples representation.

Today, Senators envision themselves as annointed to direct the policy, both foreign and domestic, of the United State as a whole.

The crux of the issue is this,

"Were Senators appointed by the state legislatures, as originally intended, several benefits would be immediately recognized.

First and foremost, a senator’s allegiance would be insulated from campaign contributions. This alone would go along way in solving the problem of “campaign finance reform” and the undue influence of lobbyists, both foreign and domestic, that do not have America’s best interest at heart."

17

But, an event that* has* been true on multiple occasions.

An exception to the rule, and a wise one, I might add.

As originally intended, the Senate was supposed to be the States representation within the FedGov, where the House of Represenatives was to be the peoples representation.

Today, Senators envision themselves as annointed to direct the policy, both foreign and domestic, of the United State as a whole.

The crux of the issue is this,

"Were Senators appointed by the state legislatures, as originally intended, several benefits would be immediately recognized.

First and foremost, a senator’s allegiance would be insulated from campaign contributions. This alone would go along way in solving the problem of “campaign finance reform” and the undue influence of lobbyists, both foreign and domestic, that do not have America’s best interest at heart."

18

No. I’d say they’re equally qualified based on the actual qualifications in the Constitution for such office. All that matters is that the people whom they represent elected them to represent them and that they meet the constitutional qualifications. See the rest of this thread for why your appraisal of what those are is in error.

19

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Razorsharp *
**

No, it wouldn’t. Bribery was endemic in pre-Seventeenth Amendment Senatorial campaigns. One of the worst scandals occurred in 1909-1912, when William Lorimer of Illinois had his election voided because of bribery. A famous cartoon of the muckraking era depicted the legislature-elected Senators as puppets of various industry trusts. In fact, “progressives” of the Twentieth Century made exactly the opposite argument in favor of the Seventeenth Amendment–that direct election would remove corruption and control by wealthy special interests.

**

That’s doubtful. The Aldriches, Lodges, and DuPonts of the world were well represented in the pre-Seventeenth Amendment Senate. And the argument that legislature-elected Senators would be more likely to share your presumed feelings about Bill Clinton is fatuous.
**

This point is incidental to your main argument, but as a student of Reconstruction, I have to take issue with this characterization. The primary objective of Reconstruction was to secure the civic and voting rights of former slaves at both the federal and state levels. This did require a greater federal law enforcement presence, which unfortunately was never pressed far enough to accomplish its objectives. But this should not be confused with the federal social legislation of the “Progressive” and New Deal eras.

I agree that the Seventeenth Amendment was a bad idea. By removing the ambassadorial aspect of Senatorial service, it did remove a check on the transfer of power from the states to the federal government. However, its repeal would not be a cure-all for corruption and insider influence, and it would not confer obvious political advantage on either present-day party.

20

Boy, they were wrong about that, weren’t they?