DE ratifies 17th Amendment--98 years later (actually 97)

Delaware officially ratifies Amendment 17 of the U.S. Constitution that provides for the popular election of U.S. Senators.

98 years ago, several states had already ratified the amendment, making it a part of the Constitution, so the 45th General Assembly apparently felt no need to do so.

Yes Isakson, not nearly the disappointment some freepers expected. I’m pretty sure I remember a few who after Isakson won the primary stated that they’d rather keep Miller instead. (Fail).

And he was gung ho for Maxie Pad Cleland. But at least to the best of my reelection he didn’t join in the rat echo chamber attacking the GOP for daring to question the liberal voting record of the “hero” Cleland.

Per wikipedia he did support Perdue in 2006 (and Ralph Reed in his losing primary). And Chamblis in 2008. But he’s been invisible nationaly since he left office. I thought he was supposed to appear on Fox News regularly, didn’t happen AFAIK.

Another thing, he ran for Lieutenant Governor on a platform of abolishing the office and ended up staying for 4 terms (and was thus the longest serving LT Governor in state history). Lame. And an indicator that just being in power was his # 1 priority for the vast majority of his career.

Nice of you to resort to name calling. Is this how quickly all your arguments devolve?

Excuse me? I didn't call you any name. I said I think the opinion that the 17th should be repealed is "insanity". That's what I think. I don't see the other side of many issues.

You asked me to name a conservative mindset Senator, I did. You did not ask that he be current.

You didn't name one at all cause Miller only fit that bill at tail end of his career. Anyway it's very unlikely that any future RAT Senator or Senatorial nominee will be an actual conservative. I don't know if what you mean by a "conservative mindset" is different from actually being a conservative.

compare him to today's Democratic senators and one could easily argue he is more conservative than the current lot.

He had the most conservative voting record for a Senate rat in some time. But that's not saying much. Which brings back to may original reason for engaging you in conversation. You should care whether Senators are democrats or not because democrats are scum and their party as an organization is only slightly less disgusting than NAMBLA.

Back to my original point, I don't fancy myself as smarter than our founding fathers, so I believe we should repeal the 17th to get back to the original intent of the constitution.

I've heard that argument many times. Which is odd since it's so easily refuted. They in their wisdom wrote a constitution that could be amended. Which it has been many times. The state legislatures themselves ratified the 17th amendment which was passed because of widespread corruption in the Senatorial selection process.

If you wanna repeal the 17th merely because it differs from the original constitution does that mean you wanna repeal every amendment for the same reason? Do you wanna repeal the 12th amendment and to go back to when the electoral college vote for President and VP were not separate? This caused problems in 1796 and 1800. Problems the founders didn't foresee (cause they were human beings not God). Lucky thing they were smart men who wrote a Constitution than can be amended.

Being against the 17th is one thing but I don't see why 1 of your reasons is that it changed the original constitution given that every amendment did the same thing.

I leave you with this, if you think the voting of senators by state legislators is anachronistic, how do you feel about the electoral college?

My feelings on the EC are mixed. Purely as a matter of principle I'd just as soon have a national popular vote though any huge regional disparities could produce problems. Any popular vote election held after reconstruction until the Mid 20th Century would have been illegitimate because the Southern rats wouldn't allow most Black voters (who were then GOP) to vote.

It very importantly prevents the specter of a nationwide recount (which would have happened in 2000). So long as the rat party commits massive nationwide voter fraud I think we need the EC. Basically that means forever since leftist election thieves aren't going anywhere.

I'd be really pissed off though if something happened like

Palin 50% 268

Obama 49% 270 Win

This almost happened in 2004 when Bush's narrow margin in Ohio was the only thing that kept Kerry out of the White House despite Bush getting like 3 million more votes overall. That was an exception, in previous close elections the EC has usually benefited Republicans. Like in 2000, although I believe between given voter fraud and vote suppression (by calling Florida for Gore) that Bush was likely the legitimate popular vote winner.

Of course I'd also be dismayed if it were abolished and this

Palin 49% 270

Obama 50% 268 Win

Occurs.

So to sum it up I'm for the EC for practical reasons.

Nice of you to resort to name calling. Is this how quickly all your arguments devolve?

Excuse me? I didn't call you any name. I said I think the opinion that the 17th should be repealed is "insanity". That's what I think. I don't see the other side of many issues.

My mistake I read the part about braindead wrong.

I acknowledge that the pre-Seventeenth Amendment regime was not perfect.
Many of those issues could be addressed from what has been learned.

Much of the Constitution is concerned with setting forth the form of our government, and its primary protections of liberty are structural. First among these structural protections are the separation of powers, served vertically by federalism. The structure was dramatically weakened, however, by the removal of the states from the federal legislative process. The primary institutional role played by the original Senate was to protect the structure of federalism and state sovereignty, in response to concerns that an omnipotent federal government would swallow-up the state governments. Appointment of Senators by state legislatures gave the states a constituent role in the national government and a means to protect themselves from laws designed to subvert state sovereignty and independence. Simply put, then, the fundamental problem with the Seventeenth Amendment is that it removed the primary structural check on the federal government's tendency to aggrandize itself vis-à-vis the states.

In my view, the history of federal expansion in the Twentieth Century, and review of the Senate that electoral politics have wrought, make it clear that the Seventeenth Amendment is, on the most charitable view, a failed attempt to respond to legitimate concerns that has done far more harm than good. Some mistakes are water over the dam; we should live with them as best as we can. Others, however, are so fundamentally damaging that the best course is to acknowledge the mistake, and to correct it. For the foregoing reasons, I think that the Seventeenth Amendment is of the latter class.

The only incentive that men with fame and power feel more strongly than the desire to increase their fame and power is the fear of losing such fame and power that they already have. Thus, the incentive structure of politicians leads them to pander to their constituencies. If a Senator's constituency is a state legislature, his or her natural tendency is to resist measures before the Senate that tend to diminish or harm the power and interests of the states generally, and the prerogatives and powers of the state legislatures particularly. With institutional representation of the states in Congress, we should expect cases involving the power of Congress to waive state sovereign immunity, for example, to be few and far between. Senators would have strong incentive to deep six any such provisions poured out of the House, and so there would be nothing to litigate.

But when a Senator's constituency is the electorate, they have very different incentives. There is zero electoral cachet in telling voters that their concerns are being directed to the wrong person. That is why Presidential campaigns today are chock full of promises that whatever is on voters' minds is something the candidate will address when -- in American politics, always the conceit of "when" not "if" -- elected. Likewise, directly elected Senators have an incentive to increase federal power because doing so expands their own power and importance, and increases the sphere in which they can seek the lifeblood of electoral politics, credit. (President Truman is credited with the maxim that "it is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit"; the remark's humor derives from the the golden rule of electoral politics that the only thing worse than an unsolved problem is a solution for a problem that voters don't care much about, or one they won't give you credit for.)

Thus, Madison's "great security" against the concentration of power, giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others such that "ambition is made to counteract ambition". The Federalist, No. 51, is discarded, and the interests and ambitions of those in the Senate are realigned with, rather than against, federal power.

There is a clear and compelling case that as time has unfolded, it has become clear that the Senate (with the Seventeenth Amendment) has produced an institutionally dysfunctional system, incapable of playing the mixed legislative/executive role envisioned by the framers, and worse yet, has fatally destabilized the delicately-balanced federal system.

I probably have an unpopular and radical opinion of the whole thing.

My opinion is that we live under an entirely different form of government
than what was designed and agreed upon during our rebellion from England.

In 1781, “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union” was ratified by all of the states. Under “The Articles”, the states retained sovereignty over all governmental functions not specifically relinquished to the central government. Article 13 of “The Articles” stated that the union was “perpetual” and that any alteration must be agreed upon to in a Congress of the United States...”.

In 1787, twelve of the thirteen states (all but Rhode Island) sent delegates to a constitutional convention with the stated intention of amending “The Articles”. That convention decided that instead of amending “The Articles”, they would instead replace it with an entirely new Constitution.

In 1788, the government created by “The Articles of Confederation” in 1781, was completely replaced by a new government, created by “The United States Constitution”.

I perceive that what we currently revere as our “constitution” is an illegal document.

But even so, the government created by “The Constitution of 1788” effectively ended on December 20th, 1860, when South Carolina (followed by twelve other states) broke from that agreement.

What we live under now is a far cry from what the founding father’s envisioned.

Have you read any of the articles by Todd Zywicki linked in this thread? He lays out the hypothesis that the 17th amendment was brought about by neither a budding progressive movement nor dissatisfaction with states that failed to appoint Senators.

Zywicki shows that pure market forces of brokering legislation to lobbyists led to a system that ensured the longevity of Senators on the premise that promises to trade votes for legislation were more valuable if the Senator could guarantee seniority, otherwise their promises had little value.

The 17th amendment was a plan by the incumbancy to sustain the seniority of Senators so that their promises to trade votes for legislation had a market value due to the fact that they could be trusted to remain in the Senate for a long enough time to make good on their promises.

-PJ

...
This was the original discussion thread back from January on Blankley’s article. I was just as aggressively defending the 17th in that thread, making the same points as I have here, with a special emphasis on the fact that the 17th enables the Republican party to conceivably be competitive in every state to elect a Senator. Repeal of the 17th would immediately make it impossible in roughly 29 states for the Republicans to win a seat. Do the math and that means we couldn’t win but 1 more seat than we currently have — a potential permanent minority.

As for my voting with my feet, I don’t have the means or capability to do so at present.

My what a difference a few months make, wouldn't you agree?

From NationalJournal:

...

Republicans picked up 680 seats in state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures -- the most in the modern era.

...
The GOP gained majorities in at least 14 state house chambers. They now have unified control -- meaning both chambers -- of 26 state legislatures.

But did you look at the states that swept in majorities vs. those where races were up this year ? Let’s take a look...

AL... Richard Shelby-R (Yes, but only because the GOP just won for the first time in 140 years)
AK... Lisa Murkowski-RINO (Probably, but only through collusion of the RINO/Democrat majority coalition)
AR... John Boozman-R (No, Democrats still have a majority)
CA... Barbara Boxer-D (Yes, Democrats have a majority)
CO... Michael Bennet-D (Yes, Dems have a numerical majority adding both bodies despite the GOP capture of the CO House)
DE... Chris Coons-D (Yes, Dems have a majority)
FL... Marco Rubio-R (Yes, GOP has majority, but he might’ve not been the party nominee)
GA... Johnny Isakson-R (Yes, GOP has majority)
HI... Daniel Inouye-D (Yes, Dems have majority)
ID... Mike Crapo-R (Yes, GOP has majority)
IL... Mark Kirk-RINO/Combiner (No, Dem has majority, but I wouldn’t cry over it — he’ll switch parties before long)
IN... Dan Coats-R (Yes, GOP has majority)
IA... Chuck Grassley-R (Up in the air, haven’t seen final legislative totals, and without GOP gains of one body, he’d have lost)
KS... Jerry Moran-R (Yes, GOP has majority)
KY... Rand Paul-R (No, Dems have numerical majority, GOP only has narrow majority in Senate)
MD... Barbara Mikulski-D (Yes, Dems have majority)
MO... Roy Blunt-R (Yes, GOP has majority)
NV... Harry Reid-D (Yes, Dems have majority)
NH... Kelly Ayotte-R (Yes, GOP just won back majority)
NY... Gillebrand & Schumer-D (Yes, Dems have numerical majority)
NC... Richard Burr-R (Yes, but only because GOP just won control of legislature for first time since 1890s)
ND... John Hoeven-R (Yes, GOP has majority)
OH... Rob Portman-R (Yes, GOP has majority)
OK... Tom Coburn-R (Yes, GOP has majority)
OR... Ron Wyden-D (Near-tied body, probably would’ve won)
PA... Pat Toomey-R (Yes, GOP has majority)
SC... Jim DeMint-R (Yes, GOP has majority)
UT... Mike Lee-R (Lee wouldn’t have likely won in a legislative contest even with a GOP majority, so RINO Bennett probably would’ve been sent back)
VT... Patrick Leahy-D (Yes, Dems have majority)
WA... Patty Murray-D (Yes, Dems have overall majority)
WV... Joe Manchin-D (Yes, Dems have majority)
WI... Ron Johnson-R (Yes, GOP just won majority)

So looking at all that, many of those Dem incumbent key races we had a shot at, we would’ve lost had the legislature elected them, and Boozman, Kirk, Paul and possibly Grassley would’ve lost (and Lee & Rubio might never have won the nominations). Hence, despite all the gains nationwide, we’d have had FOUR fewer seats going into January (and 2 more RINOs in place of Conservatives). My argument for opposing repeal of the 17th is still proven out.

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.