Posted on 05/30/2005 5:58:31 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
Even the Socialists in the Cali Legislature would appoint somebody to protect California Socialists (and Californians in general). It doesn't change the basic dynamic.
Also, If the legislature had the power to appoint senators, it would garner FAR MORE attention during elections. Most people don't know who their state reps are (I guess most people don't know who their congressman is either, but that's besides the point). The hundreds of millions of dollars that get poured into senate campaigns would be redirected towards legislature races, giving candidates greater exposure to the voter.
The state legislatures were able to recall the Senators. Now, one has to wait 6 years. That's one of the benefits of repeal.
Secondly, it makes it somewhat harder for New York or California to foist their crap on other states who want no part of said crap.
Maybe, just maybe, democracy can and does work. The question before us -- which you ignore -- is whether it would better work without the 17th amendment than with it, and not whether or not the Republic died in 1861, or 1912 or 1913.
Not to be subtle or anything, but there's a bit more to the workings of federalism than the direct election of the Senate.
Democracy has not been served by the 17th amendment precisely for opposite reasons than DiLorenzo suggests. The 17th amendment has negated democracy in destroying the constituents' relationship to both the state legislature and the Senators, who are further removed from the voter by the severe dilution of the direct election over the State legislature's more direct relation to the constituent.
x, I know you feel that the 17th didn't change much. Indeed, in the makeup of the Senate post-17th, little changed. (Go Boies Penrose!). Still, it failed in its purposes. I see no gains in it other than a transfer of corruption. In the diluted role of the citzen in transfering the Senate selection from local/representative to state-wide referendum, I see far more lost than gained. I still hope to convince you of this. Thanks, btw, for your good post.
Not really; wouldn't guys like Travanglini and Berry appoint themselves?
In a 1-party state like Mass, the dems would attack each other for a chance to go to the "big show".
There's nothing that a socialist hates more than a socialist of a different stripe.
A fact is a fact. Post-17th, the States DO NOT have representation at the federal level.
The U.S. system of checks and balances, carefully designed by our founging fathers, is no more. Due to our piss-poor public schools, most Americans understand "checks and balances" as the relationship between the three branches of federal government. However, it was also designed to allow for peripheral government, i.e. the States, to check Federal Power.
THIS SYSTEM IS NOW GONE.
Hopefully, they'll give us two ineffectual lightweights like J F'ing Kerrey. Teddy 'the swimmer' Kennedy has done a lot of damage.
"Since we have no statement in the Constitution of a required Quorum,..."
I thought that the Quorum requirement was in the US Constitution,
Article One, Section Five - Membership, quorum, ajournments, rules; Power to punish or expel; the Journal.
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Seems as if the Quorum requirement is both defined and mandated by the US Federal Constitution...
dvwjr
It is a hard call. However, you probably wouldn't get the free-wheeling, owes nothing to nobody, rich SOBs that we currently have in office. The state party machines would likely put in well-controlled puppets. The parties have much longer memories than do the voters. We'd probably get something like Deborah Poritz, but held on a short leash; wildly liberal, but not allowed to do more than dabble in her personal interests rather than NJ state interests. The state legislature could always divert blame to the Senator, and run on the basis of recalling said Senator. Since there's so much blame to go around here, the Senators would probably have to watch their step much closer.
As repugnant as it appears at first glance, I think repeal of the 17th would improve things, even in NJ.
I beg to differ. While the senators do want more money for their state, they are currently not accountable to their state. If my senator Santorum doesnt want to do what the state legislature asks him to do, there is no reprimand. By repealing the 17th, senators can be recalled by the state if they are not doing the will of the state. Also since senate races are usually the most costly in terms of lobbyists and all of the campaign money finance regulations and other garbage that goes on, having states select senators would drastically reduce corruption. IMHO a representative democracy is more corrupt than a representative republic because the elected/selected individuals are held accountable to more than just one constituent (ie. the people). So i'd have to say while you are correct in saying that states would like the extra money, the added accountablility would make senators more responsive to their state rather than self interest.
Which is far better than having Lautenberg lookout for his own corporation, or Corzine riding his hobby horses and then getting tired of the job part way through.
Repealing the 17th would also get rid of the Midwest Tom Daschles and Byron Dorgans of the World who are conservative at home, but liberal in D.C.
We'll just have to disagree then.
Another issue is the concentration of lobbyists. Under the 17th, all of the lobbyists are concetrated in one area: Washington. If it was repealed, they would be spread out among the 50 state capitals. This would make their lobbying efforts more difficult at a minimum.
Oh wait, this must be an article by DiLorenzo. Thanks for wasting my time.
Seems to me I'm making a convert for the "execution" option! (ROTFLMAO)
What I find is the phrase ".... Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members....". In an earlier spot it refers to a term of 6 years.
No doubt someone tried it, but the Constitution of the United States simply doesn't have such procedures as far as I can tell.
Direct election simply increased the number of people eligible to vote for a Senator. Otherwise there's been absolutely no impact on anything.
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.