(Zell) Miller measure targets Senate (wants to end direct election of Senators)

Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 4.28.04 | Bob Dart

[mhking]

WASHINGTON — Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) introduced legislation Wednesday that would repeal the 17th Amendment and return to the era when U.S. senators were chosen by state legislatures rather than by direct vote.

Miller, famous for his unconventional views, acknowledged in a characteristically colorful speech on the Senate floor that the measure "doesn't stand a chance of getting even a single co-sponsor, much less a single vote beyond my own."

But the man who wrote "A National Party No More" to take his fellow Democrats to task was intent on doing the same to the chamber he will depart when he retires at the end of this year. He said the Senate is in the "sorriest time in its long, checkered and once glorious history."

He said returning election of senators to state legislatures would restore "balance" between state and federal governments and reduce the influence of special interests.

Alluding to "Gone With the Wind," he charged that Washington is so corrupt that drastic steps should be taken to clean up the whole system.

"This government is in one hell of a mess, and frankly my dear, very few up here give a damn," he said. "The individuals are not so much at fault as the rotten and decaying foundation of what is no longer a republic."

The Constitution originally said each state legislature would appoint two senators while voters would directly elect members to the U.S. House. The founders sought to create "a perfect balance" of power, said Miller, a former history and political science professor.

The 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913 after deadlocks in state legislatures left some states without proper representation in the Senate. But Miller said the amendment knocked the system out of kilter, making senators dependent on special interests for campaign funds.

"Make no mistake about it: It is the special interest groups and their fund-raising powers that elect U.S. senators and hold them in bondage forever," he said, adding that senators have become "mere cat's paws for special interests."

Miller said state governments are loaded down with unfunded federal mandates, yet must line up with any number of other groups to talk about their concerns with the senators who represent their states. The amendment, he said, was "a blow to the power of state governments that would cripple them forever."

Though Miller's colleagues have come to expect the unexpected from him, his proposal surprised even some of his Senate friends.

"I'd never get elected" if it were up to the Iowa Legislature, joked Republican Sen. Charles Grassley. "I like it just the way it is."

Reaction was less than enthusiastic even in the Georgia Legislature, whose power would be multiplied if it could appoint the state's senators.

"This is a late April Fools' joke, right?" said State Rep. Tom Bordeaux (D-Savannah).

"I don't want to see us return to that situation where we have a House of Lords and a House of Commons," said Senate Democratic leader Michael Meyer von Bremen of Albany. "The senators should be elected by the people. You talk about special interest groups. Good God. If the Legislature started doing that, you'd really have some special interests."

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) accused Miller and others of treating the Constitution as a "rough draft" by proposing a series of recent amendments to require a balanced federal budget, define marriage and outlaw flag burning.

"We are the example of representative self-government in this world that works," Dorgan said. "It's messy, the noise of democracy is annoying sometimes, but it works."

Miller said it is he who really respects the Constitution.

"I'm kind of tired of these folks who make a big deal about how they revere the Constitution and carry it around with them and will pull it out like a quick-draw cowboy in the Wild West, and yet they want to say, 'We'll just pick and choose from this sacred document what we like. We'll change that way of electing senators,' " Miller wrote in an e-mail interview. "I don't think you pick and choose from the Constitution any more than you pick and choose from the Bible."

Staff writers Rhonda Cook and Jim Tharpe and The Associated Press contributed to this article.

[mhking]

Just damn.

If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...

[xrp]

Zell's pulling all the punches on his way out.

[Mich0127]

If it will get rid of Ted Kennedy, I am all for it!

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

Zell gets it although if we had real judges the 17th would have been ruled "not-ratified" since it requires not the usual majority of states, but a 100% ratification. Since several states did not ratify it. IT DID NOT PASS...

[republicanwizard]

He'd be the last Senator this would affect. The problem though is that we would lose all those Southern Senate seats. Obviously though, we would pick up seats in SD, ND, NE, MT, but we would lose them in NM, OK, etc.

[ClintonBeGone]

The 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913 after deadlocks in state legislatures left some states without proper representation in the Senate. But Miller said the amendment knocked the system out of kilter, making senators dependent on special interests for campaign funds

What I don't understand about this period of history is if the state legislatures were deadlocked in picking a Senator, how in the world did they agree to ratify a constitutional amendment that stripped them of their power?

[AlienCrossfirePlayer]

Senator Miller is absolutely right!! It's a pity he didn't arrive in the Senate long before he did. His constructive approach to governance stands in sharp contrast to so many around him.

[PhiKapMom]

As an Oklahoman, I am totally opposed -- our State Legislature cannot find its way out of a paper bag and they are the last bunch of people I want choosing a Senate. Both Houses are RATs and some liberal RATs like Cal Hobson would pick someone who would not represent the majority of Oklahomans.

BTW, the RATs have gerrymandered the OK legislature so it has been a nightmare to try and take it over. Before I moved here, there was a law on the books that RATs had to be first on the ballot everytime for every position.

IOTW -- no, no, no to State Legislatures having anything to do with choosing Senators!

[Mich0127]

Damn...and I thought I was so clever...my plans to help rid the district of Columbia of the disgrace that is Ted Kennedy fails again...boo!

So much for that :-)

But wait...we can still get rid of Hildebeast...maybe...or maybe not

[ClintonBeGone]

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) accused Miller and others of treating the Constitution as a "rough draft" by proposing a series of recent amendments to require a balanced federal budget, define marriage and outlaw flag burning.

Where does Dorgan get off saying this when all Miller is doing is restoring the constitution to its original form?

[GEC]

But would we get rid of Specter?

;-)

Actually, I would be VERY much in favor of this, especially if we enlarged the number of senators from each state to at least 10. I'd be in favor of a much larger number, but I don't think others would go for it.

This would also have the effect of limiting the effect of the roadblocks from the state legislatures.

[Mich0127]

Although I make a joke of it, I would shudder if my ultra liberal homestate of NY chose our senators...the people of NY are bad enough all on their own!

[GeronL]

WASHINGTON — Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) introduced legislation Wednesday that would repeal the 17th Amendment and return to the era when U.S. senators were chosen by state legislatures rather than by direct vote.

LOL... yea... good luck with that. *snicker*

I wish he would concentrate on things that actually could be won

[ClintonBeGone]

Although I make a joke of it, I would shudder if my ultra liberal homestate of NY chose our senators...the people of NY are bad enough all on their own!

Could it really get any worse than Hillary or Chuckie?

[ClintonBeGone]

Do you have a link to the history of the 17th amendment? Like I said earlier, I don't understand how if the state legislatures were deadlocked in picking a Senator, how they agreed to ratify a constitutional amendment that stripped them of their power?

[marktwain]

What I don't understand about this period of history is if the state legislatures were deadlocked in picking a Senator, how in the world did they agree to ratify a constitutional amendment that stripped them of their power?

The amendment was highly popular at the time. The trend in intellectual circles was toward Socialism and direct democracy. The Constitutional restraints were seen as outmoded. This was there era of Wilson, The War to End All Wars, and a vast increase in the power of the central government.

[GeronL]

we don't need no 500 Senators with staffs and spending all that tax money on themselves.

[Blood of Tyrants]

He is wrong. I think that the measure might get 4 or 5 votes.

[workerbee]

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) accused Miller and others of treating the Constitution as a "rough draft" by proposing a series of recent amendments to require a balanced federal budget, define marriage and outlaw flag burning.

The Democrats went on to say that it was far better we treat it like toilet paper as they usually do.