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

WDEL 1150 AM ^ | June 25, 2010 | Amy Cherry

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I wouldn't WANT my state legislators choosing my Senators. It's bad enough I'm disenfranchised with respect to my legislative members and my Congressional district (one party for 136 years, not GOP), but take my vote away for U.S. Senate, and my disenfranchisement will be complete for both Congress and the state legislature. 12 posted on June 25, 2010 10:15:37 PM EDT by fieldmarshaldj

You are not disenfranchised.

You still vote for the House members.

But the states - as political entities - have been disenfranchised.

In the immortal words of Billy Martin (in a Miller Lite beer commercial) "I feel strongly both ways - I never argue."

Gerrymandering does disenfranchise people - and the advent of computerized data on voter proclivities has made gerrymandering a science. So that the state legislatures - through the medium of drawing district lines - actually have more influence on the composition of the House than they now do of the Senate. The signal advantage of the direct election of senators is that the state borders may be arbitrary and capricious, but they are permanent. If you want to run for Senate and you don't move to a friendly state to do it (insert photo of Hillary here), you don't get to choose your own voters but have to convince the ones you've got. Full Stop.

The trouble with having a House strongly influenced by the states and a Senate which is not is twofold:

1. The large states have more influence in the House than the small states do, and

2. The Constitution assigns the authorities it does to the Senate on the assumption that the Senate represents the states, and to the House on the assumption that the House represents the people - and we now have it the other way around.

As matters now stand, with federally mandated "majority minority" districts, Democrats now participate in a gerrymander against themselves by concentrating black voters in districts which vote overwhelmingly Democrat - but which leave the other, more numerous, districts leaning more Republican than they otherwise would. That is also, of course, a mechanism for partisan polarization since the representatives of "majority minority" districts have negligible conservative opposition. I suppose that the principle of gerrymandering inherently produces a vociferous, but weak, minority dominated by a patronizing, probably self righteous, majority.

At any rate, the trouble with direct election of senators is that the functions - and length of term - of senators are designed for statesmen, and the mechanism for selecting them was designed by the Framers with that in mind - and instead, we have highly partisan legislators. It is an interesting fact that if the Electoral College were to fail to give a majority to any presidential candidate then the choice would devolve to the House voting by states:

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote

so that in that specific case the House members would represent their states, and each state would have equal vote, as in the Senate. So by that mechanism, the House would function like the Senate normally does.

Maybe what each state needs is senators who are chosen by "senatorial electors" of that state (whose members are elected, from districts defined by the legislature, as Congressional Districts now are), and House members elected at large to eliminate gerrymandering.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

There is a sense in which the ratification of the 17th Amendment by Delaware is not moot.

Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3 The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

If you interpret "State" above to mean the government of a State - which is IMHO the clear intent, since prior to the 17th Amendment the governments of the States were what were represented in the Senate - ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment actually required unanimous consent by the States.

[elpadre]

it is now a multimillionaire's club, perhaps because of cost of living increases??

I believe it is self-serving politicians, such as we seem to be infested with, and lack of real statesmen that is bringing down the nation.

[elpadre]

sounds good to me - the present modus is not dong the job, thanks to the 17th

[Kegger]

You would only ensure many of our states would never send a Republican to the Senate for the foreseeable future

---

I don't fancy myself as being smarter than the framers of the Constitution. I think they had it right prior to the 17th amendment.

Being from Indiana, I'm not to fond of the Republican we send to the senate now.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Fortunately, we have the Amendment process to correct aspects of the Constitution that didn’t work well for the long run. Legislatively-elected Senators wasn’t working out. Although IN would benefit from it in theory (in that it would’ve been impossible for Bayh to have won a legislative vote without attracting GOP support), the likelihood is that you still would’ve had Lugar as the Senior Senator and probably another liberal RINO like the former Mayor of Fort Wayne, Paul Helmke, as the Junior Senator. Not exactly that much better. The Senate would be full of ultra-left Democrats and squish go along to get along RINOs with next to zero Conservatives.

[Kegger]

Thank you fieldmarshaldj for that interesting hyperbole.

It is obvious we are not going to agree on this so I leave you with this:

Election of Senators by State Legislatures is an important check and balance of the Constitution. It divides the powerful Federal Congress into two different and competing constituencies. It is also republican in nature as it empowers elected State Representatives to chose their representative in the Federal government, a "Senator". The states currently do not have a representative in the Federal government. Our Federal government is effectively now made up of two House of Representatives', with NO Senate! What a huge loss. It was only after this important check to Federal usurpation was neutralized, with the direct election of Senators, that the United States began the widespread adoption of socialism. It is not coincidental.

Removing some legislative power from the people directly was and is wise. When Senators are elected by State Legislatures, they are accountable to the State Legislature that selected them. It is a completely different political dynamic. Whereas an individual may be interested in policies directly affecting them, the State Legislature has a broader perspective and is more likely interested in what affects the state as a whole. Both interests and perspectives are critical; losing either one is tragic. State Legislatures are more likely to be interested in checking federal power to jealously preserve their state's sovereignty. This is a great example of the founder's genius in using human nature to check human nature.

[PA Engineer]

No, it wouldn’t.

Please tell us why?

[fieldmarshaldj]

No exaggeration intended. I’ve studied both bodies (and indeed, have reviewed every single individual to have ever served in either body, as well as Governors) and don’t come to my conclusions lightly. There is a naive sense on the part of repealers that somehow the Senate will somehow suddenly become more high-minded and respectful of state issues. Again, many choose to ignore the makeup of the legislatures as well as ignoring what was already happening in the era where support for popular election of Senators was reaching critical mass. Simply put, I wouldn’t trust virtually any legislative body with that awesome responsibility because I believe we would have an even worse situation on our hands. My state legislature elects, for example, all but two statewide officeholders (Gov & Atty Gen), and for umpteen decades, virtually all of those individuals (which from Reconstruction until 2009 were Democrats) have been party hacks. It’s for that reason that I believe more, and not less, direct accountability to the people is preferable.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Keep reading down the thread, I answered why.

[Kegger]

We will have to agree to disagree.

While I hold no naivety that repeal of the 17th would be the panacea you seemingly attach to all who advocate it, I do appreciate the system our forefathers put in place.

The following excerpt is from Tony Blankley
Click here for full article

... Senators still would be just as likely to be corrupted. But the corruption would be dispersed to the 50 separate state legislatures. The corruption more often would be on behalf of state interests. And its remedy would be achievable by the vigilance of voters for more responsive state legislative seats (typically, about less than 50,000 residences per state legislator), rather than Senate seats (the entire population of the state -- usually millions.) ...

If your particular situation is untenable, you could always vote with your feet.

[fieldmarshaldj]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2437459/posts

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.

[Kegger]

Thank you for the thread link. Good read.

First off, be they republican, democrat, whatever part I don't care. I want a person with a conservative mindset as my Senator. By and large that usually means a republican, but not exclusively.

I appreciate your static analysis of the current make up of each states legislative bodies. I disagree that those are permanent numbers however.
Given enough time, they will self correct to what I believe to be a majority of the countries political philosophy.



The problem being it may not happen in my lifetime. I'm willing to wait, but many are not given the "I want it now" mentality of this generation.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Well, I do care what party is in, one reason to oppose this. But the other point you make is about having a Conservative Senator. Government employees (AKA, your legislature) will never elect authentic Conservatives. Even the impulses of far too many Republicans is to lean towards government expansionists. That’s why I said if the 17th were repealed, the only real change you’d see is what few Conservatives replaced with more liberal RINO types (while the Democrats would be uniformally on the far left).

Of course, the numbers for some of the legislatures change over time, but for enough of them, they don’t, and hence you’d have a solid bloc of states that would never change from being Democrat (while conversely just a few could be considered reliably GOP — Colorado used to be one, and now it is Democrat).

The issue about correction to becoming representative of the national plurality preference of Conservative also is highly unlikely, given what I stated in the first paragraph. Getting control of legislatures can be highly problematic, especially due to gerrymandering (a chronic problem in my state, for which we only recently broke through, but not entirely). Legislatures themselves have their own power structures/cliques that are difficult to broach, and those would be the small groups choosing and cutting deals to elect/reelect Senators.

But, yes, it won’t happen in your lifetime, and allowing the expansionist government types/parasites unfettered control means we’ll likely see a complete collapse before that ever occurs. The only chance we Conservatives have is to keep the 17th firmly in place, try to get as many party nominations for the Senate as possible and to aggressively and unapologetically work to shrink the size of government, something that would be utterly impossible with legislative-chosen flunkies/hacks and bosses.

[Impy]

Oh g*d, I don’t even wanna read the comments in this thread.

Anyway, Kegger, name a RAT Senator with a “conservative mindset”.

The most conservative one is the Obamacare deciding vote, the slag whore Ben Nelson. That party is a force of evil. I’d like to see them defeated (right now).

“... Senators still would be just as likely to be corrupted. But the corruption would be dispersed to the 50 separate state legislatures. The corruption more often would be on behalf of state interests”

First of all most of it already is if by “state interests” you mean pork. Second of all those rats in the state legislatures support every liberal and corrupt thing the rats in congress do, they’re doing the same thing at the state level. Rats in congress often got their start in their state legislature. They don’t somehow become worse when they go to Washington.

Honestly I don’t know how anyone can be in favor of shirking of the electorate for the Senate to a handful of career politicians who run the state legislatures. It’s insanity.

[Kegger]

Anyway, Kegger, name a RAT Senator with a “conservative mindset”.

Zell Miller?

[Impy]

Ah weird old Zell the chameleon. He went from segregationist to Carter liberal to Clintonite “New Dem” to “Conservative” (moderate) Democrat to Republican-supporting literal DINO. Whatever the prevailing wind in Georgia was at the time.

Allegedly (possibly dubious) he backed Mike Gravel (liberal in the Senate, he was running as a left-libertarian and thus the least bad of the rat candidate) in 2008. If true that’s another weird shift, this time to the left.

Anyway he’s long gone. And he propped up Tom Daschle’s “Majority” for 2 years. A conservative who supports democrat control of a legislative body either

a)Isn’t really conservative
b)union-owned
C)Braindead
D)Cares more about their own power than anything (in the case of some members of the current still rat controlled southern legislatures)

The deceased Republican he replaced and the Republican he beat in the 2000 special election were both superior to Zell who up until his last year or 2 voted like a moderate.

Actual conservative (not moderate) democrats in congress are a thing of the past. A relic from the one party south. I couldn’t tell you the last one in the Senate who had a truly conservative voting record. Henry Byrd Jr. from Virginia maybe. He left the rats to sit as an independent but still caucused with them until he retired in 1982.

[Vermont Lt]

Actually I read an argument about this the other day. It was based on the premise that the Senate would have more responsibility to the State than to their own popular reelection.

They would have to think about how their actions affected the state. They would not have to be beholden to the special interests in Washington...but rather the special interests of their own homes and the impact of their actions on the states.

Kind of made sense.

[BillyBoy]

>> Anyway he’s long gone. And he propped up Tom Daschle’s “Majority” for 2 years. A conservative who supports democrat control of a legislative body either
a)Isn’t really conservative
b)union-owned
C)Braindead
D)Cares more about their own power than anything (in the case of some members of the current still rat controlled southern legislatures) <<<

I vote for E), all of the above. The Senate was split 50-50 and "conservative" Zig Zag would have made the difference in Senate control if he hadn't sided with the left. Guys like Zig Zag Zell and Joe LIEberman show where the loyalities really are when they vote to put socialist RATs in power when chips are down and we truly "need" them to deliver for us, as opposed to when they put on a dog and pony show about "endorsing" a big-government Republican presidential candidate on TV. Zig Zag Zell also endorsed and campaign hard for liberal Max Cleland in 2002 (incorrectly assuming Cleland would win due to incumbency), though his fans here quickly forgave him because he gave nice "I'm a rock-ribbed southern conservative" speeches later when he wasn't running for re-election.

I think most of Zig Zag Zell's newfound "conservativism" (which he retroactively used to claim he had been a conservative "all along") was because he was retiring and could ca$h in on the GOP riding high in the 2004 elections (controlling all three branches of government at the time), and Zell could make a killing in book sales if he got kissy with the "winning" team and played "maverick" (knowing the RAT party couldn't retaliate and/or punish him for it). When he still had to make it thur RAT party primaries, Zell would cast his vote with the left on key votes. Zell Miller, like Mark Kirk, stands for whatever advances Zell Miller's clout at that moment in history.

Note that in 2006 and 2008, when the momentum was with the RATs, Zell kept a low profile and didn't actively speak out for the "conservative" cause. There was nothing in it for him. And of course when Clinton was riding high in the polls back in 1992, Zell was Bubba's BFFF.

>> The deceased Republican he replaced and the Republican he beat in the 2000 special election were both superior to Zell who up until his last year or 2 voted like a moderate. <<

I'll go one step further and point out that the "RINO" who replaced Zell, Johnny Iskason, had a better overall voting record as well and a higher lifetime ACU rating. I have to wonder what side freepers are on when they vote for and applaud a RAT who puts Daschle in power but decry a GOP replacement who has gone to bat for conservative causes far more consistently.

At most, you could say Zell turned out far better than expected and Roy Barnes probably regretted the appointment and wished he had chosen another RAT. But Zell certainly wasn't a "good conservative" until the final two years of his term and his suddenly swing to the right was as unpredictable as when Kennedy appointed Byron White due to promises he made big labor and ended with a right-of-center judge instead of the liberal they expected.

Zell Miller's Senate career was pretty much a strange fluke due to Zell's political whore-monger nature. One "abolish the 17th amendment" adovcate actually told me we would NEVER have Senators voting for amnesty if state governments got to make the appointment instead of voters. Am I to believe that Lisa Murkowski, Roland Burris, Michael Bennett, Ted Kaufman, and Bob Menendez were expected to be "anti-amnesty" Senators when their state officials put them in the U.S. Senate? Bizarre stuff.

[fieldmarshaldj]

There’s nothing wrong with the premise or argument in theory, the problem is with what happens with the reality when it is implemented. The high-mindedness would simply not materialize and was largely gone by the time of the 17th.