Speaking of semantic differences, I think of “rights” as belonging to people, and “powers” or “authority” as being vested in the government.
I understand that this is not the usage in the Constitution.
Sovereignty in America is a complex issue. The states are not sovereign in the traditional sense. The US is a nation, Delaware is not.
Personally, I don’t see why the states should be represented in the central government. This makes the government even more remote from its constituents. Also, it magnifies the representation of the states with small populations. The square states, despite having many fewer people than California, have the same 2 Senators.
Why should some people be represented more than others?
Are we not equal?
…these are the United States of America. And you don’t have to be a rabid “States’ rightist” to understand that, as friedo pointed out earlier, each sovereign state must have equal representation as a partner in this union of states, while also allowing the will of the people to be represented proportionally in the federal government. Our bicameral system attempts to do just that, and has performed well enough that you’ll have to work quite a bit harder to convince me representation in the Senate needs to be dependent on population.
As far as the OP goes, I’m not sure the phrases “intellectual integrity” and “state legislatures” necessarily go hand in hand. Repeal of the 17th would, IMO, be a giant step away from accountability of Senators to the people of their state. I share Bob Cos’s doubts about states’ interests being allowably different from the collective interests of the people of those states.
Thanks for the reply, xenophon41.
Your posts assumes that the Constitution delineates the best way to run this country. I assure you that I don’t agree.
I contend that this country of ours is NOT a confederation of independent states and hasn’t been since the Civil War. The proper usage is “the US is a republic” not “the US are republics”.
One nation, under… whoops. Well, you get the picture.
Well, the states are certainly not independent entities, which is clearly stated in Aritcle VI, and in the first two sections of Article IV. They are, however, most assuredly republics in and of themselves, as evidenced by Section 4 of Article IV (“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”). You may not think the Constitution shows the best way to run this country, but I’m sure you’ll agree that it is the supreme law of the land.
Fortunately for people with such strong disagreement with the document as you, it is amendable. Care to give some compelling arguments for or against the OP?
I maintain that I was drawn into this hijack by friedo’s antidemocratic posts, but I will withdraw. And I will do so without commenting on the chances of abolishing the Senate given the “no state shall be deprived of its equal sufferage in the Senate without its permision” clause in the 5th article of the Constitution.
See what a gentleman I am?
To the OP:
I disagree.
People should be represented in the national legislature, not states.
More layers of bureaucracy between the people and their lawmakers are undesirable, IMO.
Let me just say that I am NOT antidemocratic. I believe in democracy. However, just as the government has checks and balances against itself, without depriving any one part of too much power, there should be a check against the people, without depriving them of too much power. I think going back to the original system would accomplish that, somewhat.
xenophon41
This is the main point I’m trying to make. The people already have their representation, proportionally by state (thus everyone in the country has equal representation) in the House. I maintain that each state is an individual sovereign(*) republic, who chose to enter into the agreement with the rest of the states by ratifying the constitution. Therefore, the states themselves must also have equal representation, (Hmm…how about two votes per state?).
Now, under the current system, instead of the people having their equal representation, and the states having their own equal representation, only the people have representation. The Senate has become, essentially, a way for every state to get two more Representatives.
Now, I must concede that I don’t know if state legislatures would do a better job than the people in choosing senators. However, I think it would be advantageous, because people already in the state government would have a better handle on the issues affecting the state (mainly those issues that affect the state’s relationship with other states and with the federal government) and would be better prepared to represent those issues in the Senate.
By the way, I’m not going to actually start a giant movement to get the ammendment repealed, I just started learning about it the other day and thought this topic would make an interesting debate. I think it has. But I still am maintaining my original position.
By “sovereign” I don’t mean recognized as independent nations (obviously, they’re not) but that they have their own governmental bodies and processes independent of the Federal government. The US is (perhaps less now than before) still a union of seperate states, who choose to have a main governmental body represent all of their interests to the rest of the world.
It’s true that the United States remains a federal republic, and that the governmental authority of the states in their jurisdictions is guaranteed by the national Constitution. However, I think that since the end of the War of Southern Aggression–not to mention various other historical events, including the rise of modern multinational corporate capitalism, a couple of World Wars, a Great Depression, and the Cold War–it’s a bit of a stretch to say that the “seperate states…choose to have a main governmental body represent all of their interests to the rest of the world”.
I meant that wink for me blaming you for the hijack, as well.
If you really believe that “checks against the people” are not antidemocratic then I would be happy to disabuse you of the notion in another thread but I truly am done hijacking this one.
I just recalled this argument that I have read casting doubt on the constitutionality of the 17th amendment. I don’t have much use for it but you might find it interesting:
The third clause of article 5 that I mentioned above precludes a state from being denied it’s suffrage in the Senate. The 17th amendment removes this suffrage from the State ( as in the state government ) and gives it to the people of that state. 37 states ( out of 48 ) states ratified this amendment but 10 did not. Utah rejected it outright.
I hope I’m not being nebby but you look like you could use a sig. Please feel free to use this if you think it’s not too lame: It’s friedo? I’m afraid so.
One last thing, it is spelled “amendment”. Not to nitpick or anything, I know my speeling is quite poor. Just trying to help. Do you use Merriam-Webster OnLine?
Well, it is anti-democratic in the sense that I don’t believe a purely democratic system is ideal, or even desirable. In a republican form of government, The People constitute part of the government, and as such, should also have their powers somewhat limited. Notice I say somewhat. ALL parts of the government need to have limits on their power.
That is interesting. I don’t think you can really challenge the constitutionality of an amendment, though, since an amendment is part of the Constitution.
Heh, ok, I tried for five minutes, but I just don’t get it. I must be extremely dense.
Well, it is anti-democratic in the sense that I don’t believe a purely democratic system is ideal, or even desirable. In a republican form of government, The People constitute part of the government, and as such, should also have their powers somewhat limited. Notice I say somewhat. ALL parts of the government need to have limits on their power.
That is interesting. I don’t think you can really challenge the constitutionality of an amendment, though, since an amendment is part of the Constitution.
Heh, ok, I tried for five minutes, but I just don’t get it. I must be extremely dense.
Generally not, no, but Article V, which sets out the procedures for amendments, specifically says that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate” (by a Constitutional Amendment). So an Amendment decreeing that henceforward the Dakotas only get one Senator each wouldn’t fly. Of course I don’t buy the argument that this invalidates the 17th Amendment, since the states are still equally represented, it’s just the method by which those representatives are chosen which has changed, and the clause doesn’t say anything about that. I would presume that you could pass an amendment that each state only gets one Senator instead of two (if we absorb all the provinces and states from Canada and Mexico, or admit a bunch of new states on Mars or something, and the Senate becomes too unwieldy); also, if we could persuade the various states involved to give their consent, we could still pass the One Senator Apiece From the Square States Amendment, but I wouldn’t hold my breath on that. (Incidentally, 2sense, I like the phrase “the square states”.)
Once an amendment is certified by the Secretary of State it’s part of the Constitution and the only way to change it is with another amendment. You can’t argue in front of the Supreme Court that an Amendment is unconstitutional. It’s a logical impossibility as I see it.
I still can’t grasp the point of the OP. The 17th Amendment was passed as part of the Progressive movement in the early 20th Century. It was one of its biggest accomplishments (along with the income tax). State Legislatures in the late 19th Century were among the most corrupt governmental bodies in the country. Railroad interests dominated many state legislatures. In turn, these same legislatures would send railroad-friendly senators to Washington.
Can you make the argument today that state legislatures are any less dominated by special interest groups? Here in California, I don’t see that being the case. The special interest groups have already co-opted many of the vestiges of the Progressive movement into their own political arsenal, in particular the initiative process.
A more practical problem is that the voting public won’t allow any retrenchment of what it can vote for. Removing the direct election of Senators would further disillusion many uninspired voters.
However, opinions about the income tax and the direct election of senators aren’t related in this day and age.
The present income tax is much different from the Progressive era income tax.
However, in the Progressive era, the income tax was seen as a social good. The 16th amendment was ratified by 42 states, only CT, FL, VA, UT, and RI voted against. (One state apparently didn’t act on it, but I don’t know which one.)
Care to give some compelling arguments for or against the OP?