Posted on 06/13/2010 7:05:07 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The 17th Amendment is stupid:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years….
But let me start at the beginning. Article I § 3 cl. 1 of the Constitution originally established the election of Senators through the state legislatures. The Federalist #62 laid out numerous arguments for the Constitutional framework of the Senate and its method of selection.
The senatorial trust, which, requiring greater extent of information and stability of character, requires at the same time that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages….
Years later, Alexis de Tocqueville made some observations about the Senate in “Democracy in America.”
The Senate is composed of eloquent advocates, distinguished generals, wise magistrates, and statesmen of note, whose arguments would do honor to the most remarkable parliamentary debates of Europe.
We went from great statesmen like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John Calhoun prior to the 17th Amendment, to that of Al Franken.
This man would never have been elected to the Senate prior to the 17th Amendment.
A number of issues in the Missouri Senate race highlight the problems with the 17th Amendment, which leads me to US Senate candidate Robin Carnahan (D-MO).
As a Missouri blogger pointed out, she has no clue what a “banking executive” does or which side of the podium the state and national flags should be placed, let alone what her role would be as a Senator from Missouri. Evidence of this can be found in her recent smears of US Senate candidate Roy Blunt (R-Missouri). She accuses Blunt of being a proponent for a “Big Oil Bailout” in light of the recent BP oil spill. Her accusations were quickly debunked by left-leaning factcheck.org. Of course, the bigger issue here is what the hell that has to do with Missouri. What should concern Missourians is Democrat support for Cap & Trade that has been influenced by BP and would harm Missouri taxpayers. Robin Carnahan should have to explain why she would not support a job-killing bill proposed by her party, and supported by “Big Oil.” I say “should” because she is nowhere to be found. Roy Blunt can be seen all over the state campaigning.
Carnahan is relying on her name recognition in Missouri, and her ability to avoid commenting on any substantive policy concerning the state of Missouri. Her life in public office as Missouri Secretary of State consists of playing patron to various progressive organizations in their quest to ruin the elective process in Missouri. The “Carnahan” name does have some pull. Her father infamously defeated John Ashcroft in a 2000 Senate race, despite the fact that he died prior to the election. Her brother, “Rubberstamp” Russ Carnahan, similarly won with name recognition a seat in the US House of Representatives. He tows the line for Nancy Pelosi and the national Democratic Party, just like Robin will do if she wins. If the 17th Amendment did not exist, her campaign for Senate would be laughable.
Another issue is the Republican primary. The favorite is heavyweight US Representative Roy Blunt, while the underdog, State Senator Chuck Purgason, has been garnering support from the grassroots.
Blunt has the resources to defeat Carnahan, while Purgason has the outsider credentials favored in the national anti-incumbent atmosphere. This is where the fight for Missouri’s Senate seat should be fought. Without the 17th Amendment, Carnahan would not stand a chance with the conservative state legislature (which allowed the first state referendum on Obamacare). She relies on the media in St. Louis and Kansas City to push her candidacy, while Blunt and Purgason fight it out among voters to their own detriment. In the end, Missouri may not get the representative it deserves in the Senate.
I have often said that when it comes to American government we should ask ourselves WWJMD (What would James Madison do?), and so I end with the thoughts of James Madison (who, I might add, authored the Constitution), in Federalist # 62, which exemplifies the need for contrast between the two houses of Congress:
It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust. In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient. This is a precaution founded on such clear principles, and now so well understood in the United States, that it would be more than superfluous to enlarge on it. I will barely remark, that as the improbability of sinister combinations will be in proportion to the dissimilarity in the genius of the two bodies, it must be politic to distinguish them from each other by every circumstance which will consist with a due harmony in all proper measures, and with the genuine principles of republican government.
It appears that “sinister combinations” have increased proportionately with the decrease in “dissimilarity” between the houses of Congress. As a result, the administrators of our national government have forgotten their constituents, and proved “unfaithful to their important trust.”
Repeal the 17th Amendment!
One of the benefits of not having the 17th amendment would be that people would closely follow state politics and know who their state congressman are.
AMEN, Brother!
One of the benefits of not having the 17th amendment would be that people would closely follow state politics and know who their state congressman are.
That's what happened pre-17th. The People knew that State legislative elections were also de facto U.S. Senate elections.
At least the 17th Amendment got rid of all that corruption in the Senate; yeah, right. [/sarc]
As tempting as it would be to repeal the 17th there were permanent jerks in the Senate before it. We’ve mostly forgotten those problems and how they drove the 17th’s adoption. A proper argument for repeal should revue historical problems with both systems and at least consider some revisions to the original. I do think the original model of indirect senatorial elections strengthened the power of the States vs. the Feds and favored the desired (correctly by the Framers!) Republic over the now mistakenly favored Democracy. Now we might benefit from additional checks and balances, perhaps some that weren’t practical with the communications and transportation of the Framer’s era. Maybe let the legislature pick them, but provide for the possibility of recall elections and/or term limits. The 21st did more than just repeal the 18th, the 17th may deserve the same.
The State legislatures do not choose senators by legislative or sovereign authority, but by a power of ministerial agency as mere electors or boards of appointment. They have no power to direct the senators how or what duties they shall perform; they have neither power to censure the senators, nor to supersede them for misconduct.
It is not the power of choosing to office merely that designates sovereignty, or else corporations who appoint their own officers and make their own by-laws, or the heads of department who choose the officers under them, such as commanders of armies, etc., may be called sovereigns, because they can name men to office whom they cannot dismiss therefrom.
The exercise of sovereignty does not consist in choosing masters, such as the senators would be, who, when chosen, would be beyond control, but in the power of dismissing, impeaching, or the like, those to whom authority is delegated.
The power of instructing or superseding of delegates to Congress under the existing confederation has never been complained of, although the necessary rotation of members of Congress has often been censured for restraining the state sovereignties too much in the objects of their choice. As well may the electors who are to vote for the president under the new constitution, be said to be vested with the sovereignty, as the State legislatures in the act of choosing senators.
The senators are not even dependent on the States for their wages, but in conjunction with the federal representatives establish their own wages.
The senators do not vote by States, but as individuals. The representatives also vote as individuals, representing people in a consolidated or national government; they judge upon their own elections, and, with the Senate, have the power of regulating elections in time, place and manner, which is in other words to say, that they have the power of elections absolutely vested in them.
Antifederalist 39
I have been advocating the repeal of the 17th Amendment for years.
I live in Illinois and thus have no representation in the United States Senate. Looking at the current candidates for Roland burris’ seat, I expect that situation to continue.
Let's say either two 6-yr terms for Senators maximum (only ONE re-election cycle - and no out-cycle and then rerun option) OR MAYBE three 4-year terms (make them a little less independent of their states’ goodwill).
Return to having them appointed by the STATES as originally intended, to be the advocates for the STATES in the federal government, just as the Representatives were intended to be advocates for the People.
As regards the House - limit them to five 2-year terms maximum.
AND time served in either Chamber, counts against the limit in the other, were one to switch from running for one chamber to the other. No double-dipping.
If one has served two terms as a Senator, he cannot run for the House. He can run for President of course.
If one has been a Senator for one term, he can serve in the House an additional two terms (ten years total).
If one has served three terms as a Representative, he can run for Senator for one term (twelve years total).
If one has served four or five terms as a Rep - he is
(A) either ineligible to run for the Senate as he will go over 12 years if he serves a full term... OR
(B) maybe we give them an option to run for an abbreviated Senate term of 4 or 2 years, with forced open election in the 12th cumulative year?
HOLDING OFFICE in Congress should NOT be a Career!
NEVER EVER.
Ten or twelve years max, and then get a real job!
Get it back to the concept of public service by citizen legislators instead, who had a life before office, and will have to return to the real world after their stint.
No Ruling Class, which is what professional congress has become.
Repeating for emphasis - Congress Should NOT Be A Career!
IMHO
;^)
In a head to head Battle, Purgason edges Carnahan because of his legislative experience. Carnahan is mostly executive branch. In other words, a paper pushing bureaucrat.
Blunt ranks #130 of the US House rankings out of 178, The Club for Growth’s Economic Freedom Power Rankings give Blunt a paltry ranking of 39.45% compared to the highest Democrat at 24.75%. That makes Blunt’s so called “conservative” ranking only 15 points higher than the highest ranked Democrat, and 45 points below Michelle Bachman at nearly 86%.
Blunt is uninspiring to Missouri voters. In contrast, Chuck Purgason has inspired thousands of grass roots Conservatives and “Tea Partiers to join his campaign. Missouri is like America, believing that control of the election process starts with people, and not the party. They are tired of the “party” pushing off marginal candidates with weak backbones, but lots of special interest money.
Chuck Purgason is inspirational and a a man of integrity. While voting for Purgason in the August 3rd Primary, be sure to vote for Prop C, “The Health Care Freedom Act” which Purgason was a co sponsor. Chuck understands the Constitution. Blunt seems to ignore it.
Antifederalist #39 was not the US Constitution before the 17th Amendment. What’s your point?
It's a massive waste of time worrying about the 17th amendment, or for that matter, the 10th.
Maybe the 10th and 17th aren’t important to you.
Perhaps the entire Constitution is a bother for all left wingers.
How do you know the electing of Senators by their representative state legislature was not empowering to the states? Where is that stated?
I think that Senators are much less likely to represent their state when they have to raise funds from outside special interests to get reelected, than raising favor from their own state of residence.
Actually, it doesn't seem to be much of a bother at all to the left, or any other big government advocates.
How do you know the electing of Senators by their representative state legislature was not empowering to the states? Where is that stated?
The reasoning is laid out in the essay I quoted.
I think that Senators are much less likely to represent their state when they have to raise funds from outside special interests to get reelected, than raising favor from their own state of residence.
I think that we need a federal system without direct taxation. As long as the taxpayers are footing the bill, you have a corrupt spoils system.
What we need is a way for the feds to tax the states, not the people. That would be a federal system, as opposed to the national system we have. You just need a way to ensure that the states pay up. It was that problem that led the US off track back in the 1780s. Unfortunately, the cure was worse than the disease. We need to get back to a truly federal system.
Under such a system, states would not be looking for federal aid--they'd be paying it. Then the states would be a real check on the feds, because whatever the feds decided to spend, the states would have to collect from their constituents. As it is, they are no check at all. Check cashers, but not a check on the system.
The mode of electing senators changes nothing. It's all about money and power. As long as the national government has the power it has, the states are mere clients.
Look in the Federalist papers #21 on the issue of how to equitably tax the nation. Property values were adequate for local tax basis. But on a national basis property values differed so much that the taxation could not be equitable between states.
Jefferson instead used a similar formula 200 years ahead of the Laffer Curve on economics and concluded the most equitable form of taxation was a consumption tax. Now known as the Fair Tax.
Why not let the states collect the sales tax, and each state sends a percentage to the national government? Then you have no direct taxation by the national government.
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.