Posted on 05/28/2012 11:45:53 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
In a book titled "Progressive Principles", which is a collection of Roosevelt's speeches, (and which Roosevelt himself endorsed, see the preface) Roosevelt made clear his favor for the direct election of senators: (Page 3 - April 3rd, 1912)
For this purpose we believe in securing for the people the direct election of United States Senators exactly as the people have already secured in actual practice the direct election of the President.
Page 65: (February 21st, 1912)
I believe in the election of United States Senators by direct vote.
Page 315: (August 17th, 1912 - Bull Moose platform)
In particular, the party declares for direct primaries for the nomination of State and National officers, for Nation-wide preferential primaries for candidates for the Presidency, for the direct election of United States Senators by the people; and we urge on the States the policy of the short ballot, with responsibility to the people secured by the initiative, referendum, and recall.
As an aside note, I'd bet that many people didn't realize that all of these things were originally a part of the progressive program. All of this makes sense, when you consider the massive amounts of propaganda that progressives were putting out back in those days, and do still to this day.
There are a lot of people who will do a lot of hating on Woodrow Wilson for all of the things that were done on his watch(and almost the entirety of it is rightfully deserved. See my archives, I've probably posted about Wilson more than any other), but it's long been forgotten in far too many quarters that much of Wilson's program was either an extension of Roosevelt's or was the direct implementation of it.
At the time that these speeches of his were being given, the 17th would've been making it's way through state legislatures.
Now, it's true that there may have been more consistent voices out there agitating toward the implemtation of direct senatorial election, in particular, William Jennings Bryan. But as a former President, Roosevelt's voice would've been a powerful affirmative voice toward it's implementation given his popularity. And as the leader of the progressive party, Roosevelt's position on the matter should not be forgotten.
Senators should represent the interests of their states and not the masses.
Clause 1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, ....
It was a sad day when the Roosevelt family immigrated to this country.
Democracy eventually kills. Lots. Every time.
My only problem with the 17th is that it never passed. Total fraud.
What Lincoln started Roosevelt finished.
I am not from SC but does anyone think SC legislature would pick Goober Graham for Senator? I lived in Chas. SC for 4 years it is a very conservative state.
I actually think that Teddy Roosevelt wasn't right in the head (I believe many of his contemporaries felt the same way.)
Also think that it should be illegal for states' congressional delegation to receive any out-of-state funding.
The 17th basically affirmed the rapid decline of federalism, all in the name of “populism.” Essentially, a majority of States could then supersede another’s Legislative actions.
If any State wanted popular election of their Senators (or outright appointment by the Governor, or one from each branch, or whatever), that was always possible w/o this amendment...
Wasn’t Teddy a spoiler in the election that gave America Woodrow Wilson, in much the same way Ross Perot gave America the Clintons?
How would that work if the compact agreed to and ratified by the states says:
“Clause 1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, ....”
Yup. He ran as a severe conservative and took a hard left in office.
Interesting post. If you want to liven things up a bit, ping BlackElk. I tangled with him last week on the subject of 17th amendment, when discussing out of state interests and money getting senators elected to represent interests not of their own state.
He considers himself a conservative, but supports the direct election of senators and thinks the progressive movement isn’t all bad.
Interesting post. If you want to liven things up a bit, ping BlackElk. I tangled with him last week on the subject of 17th amendment, when discussing out of state interests and money getting senators elected to represent interests not of their own state.
He considers himself a conservative, but supports the direct election of senators and thinks the progressive movement isn’t all bad.
Might could look at it that way, except Ross Perot did not throw the election to the Clintons, although the moderate republicans like to explain their failures that way.
By the way, the other guy in that election, Taft, also supported the constitutional Amendment creating the Federal Income Tax. What was Taft’s position on creation of a private central bank called the Federal Reserve? And the 17th Amendment? Or did he even have a campaign promise out there dealing with the fed and the 17th?
Of course Ross Perot threw the election to the Clintons. It’s a question of arithmetic. Clinton did not have the ability to reach 50%. Period. In a 2-person race, Clinton was a sure loser.
You don’t/didn’t like Bush, fine. You voted for Perot, fine. That was certainly your right.
But don’t try to fudge the arithmetic. Clinton was locked into less than 50%. Without Ross Perot, no President Clinton. It’s simple arithmetic.
(Or are you one of those who believe that if the party says that 2 + 2 = 5, then 2 + 2 really does equal 5?)
If your unicameral State Legislature wants to rubber-stamp a Governor's recommendation, say, or your State House selects one member while the local Senate the other, I as a New Yorker should have no say in the process.
As a citizen, this might be another consideration (as with Entitlement policies or immigration laws) regarding relocation to a friendlier region.
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.