Posted on 10/18/2007 10:40:11 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The conclusion from the article suggests that with or without the 17th amendment the senators would de facto be chosen by the people.
If there is anything good about the 17th amendment is that it just made it more clear what was really happening.
In my mind, one of the worst things that happened is when the Supreme Court decided that all state reps had to be chosen according to population.
This meant that over time all of the important decisions within the state would be made by those living in the one or two most populous urban centers.
Those decisions and those elected politicians could then go on to influence who made it into the House of Reps or the Senate.
So now all of our elected reps owe most of what they have gained politically to urbanites.
It would be nice if at the state level there were an equal number of votes for farmers, ranchers, suburbanites, and urbanites rather than proportional votes making the votes of the farmers, ranchers, and suburbanites mere formalities.
Corruption existed before and after the 17th amendment. The difference is that the 17th amendment reduced the amount of influence the state legislatures could bring to bear against the congress. And since congress is more powerful the corruption has a greater affect.
well, corruption aside, I’d rather that the Public vate for Senators, thus they have to answer to and convince their constituents to cast their their vote between the candidates, than only need convince and influence a few hundred people. After all, it’s not unusual for Legislatures to thumb their noses at the people and do what’s in their own self-interest.
Bump for later
Not uncommon? I'd say it's the rule. And that's why I prefer the two legislative levels to be in competition with each other. As it stands now the states are just administrative subdivisions of the whole. Previously the states could use the power to choose senators as a check on the power of congress - that's why the senate was created. With the senate being democratic why even have it?
Yeah, good call.
Now you're just being argumentative.
We have the house of representatives. It was intended to be the democratic body; and it is still the more democratic body since each vote for a congressman is less diluted than a vote for a senator. So what's the point of the senate? The senate was intended to give the state legislatures a voice in the federal government, but direct election ended that.
If I have the time.
But, the articles on the righthand side of the blog are the ones I would really go after. They are probably more in-depth than the blog entries themselves.
This was an absolutely tyrannical decision which violated the spirit of the 10th Amendment. It was kritarchy at its most abhorrent. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say, as far as I know, that the states must be representative democracies. In fact, the Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government.
Personally, if I were King of Maryland (an impossibility, of course), I would reorganize my state Senate to have Senators either appointed by county governments or elected by the people in the counties. The Senate would have county-by-county organization, with two Senators from each county, and there would be at least one democratically-elected delegate (House) in each county. The Senators would be divided into two staggered classes, with the appointment/election of each class every eight years. (The first class would have its appointment/election in 2010, the second in 2014, and so on.) The pattern would roughly mirror that of the pre-17th Amendment Congress.
Yes, I’m reading them as well, between torturing little ones having their first dental exam.
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.