Skip to comments.The 17th Amendment Revisited
Posted on 07/05/2010 4:27:19 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Original provisions of the Constitution intended to prevent Congress from enacting “dumb” laws were vitiated by ratification of the 17th Amendment.
Before ratification of the 17th Amendment it’s unlikely that a Senate committee would have needed to raise the sort of question posed by Senator Coburn during confirmation hearings on Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court. A Wall Street Journal editorial reports:
If Congress passed a law saying Americans were required to eat three fruits and three vegetables a day, Mr. Coburn asked, would that be legitimate under the Commerce Clause? It sounds like a “dumb law,” Ms. Kagan wisecracked, which is true enough, but then she added that “courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they’re senseless.” In other words: Congress could do it.
The real question here is whether Ms. Kagan recognizes any limits on the Commerce Clause, which legislators have used as justification to regulate or mandate just about anything, and which the Obama Administration is eyeing as its golden ticket to defend ObamaCare. Some 20 states are challenging the law on the grounds that forcing people to buy health insurance shreds the Constitution.
… Ms. Kagan maintained that in recent years the Commerce Clause has been read broadly, to suggest “that deference should be provided to Congress with respect to matters that affect interstate commerce” and that “the principal protector against bad laws is the political branches themselves.
That one would have made James Madison howl.
I must disagree, however, with the Journal’s understanding. Abundant evidence from James Madison’s notes on the 1787 Constitutional Convention debates, as well as from the Federalist Papers and correspondence and speeches by prominent political leaders of the founding era, make clear that the Senate’s role was to prevent Congress from passing laws that infringed upon powers traditionally reserved to state governments.
Delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly recognized that the broad language of a constitution cannot prescribe limits upon Congressional legislative power for every one of the myriad occasions in which regulatory questions can arise. Such questions, the delegates noted, are political in nature, not judicial issues. Ms. Kagan is correct that the courts have no constitutional authority to reject Congressional enactments solely because judges regard them as “dumb.” Deference to Congress in such matters is a position of proper judicial restraint.
The Senate was intended to be the bulwark against unwise political actions that infringed upon the rights and powers reserved to the states and to the people by the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights. Because Senators were originally elected by their state legislatures, they had to be attendant to the wishes of the individual states and could not, as now under the 17th Amendment, respond primarily to pressure from national political parties to conform to the dictates of special interest groups such as public employees labor unions or “green” fanatics.
Ratification of the 17th Amendment thrust upon the Supreme Court the burden of attempting to play the role originally intended for the Senate, a role that the courts simply cannot fulfill. Since 1913 the Supreme Court has twisted and turned, seeking constitutional justifications, however indirect, to impose restraints upon egregiously damaging and unwise legislative action. It should not have to assume that role. Without the 17th Amendment, Federal courts would not be the centers of bitter political fights, litmus tests, and poisonous confirmation hearings that destroy reputations and careers.
The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, was one of many initiatives championed by liberal-progressives to facilitate transformation of the Federal government from one limited by constitutional constraints into one with almost unlimited powers to impose new sociological standards. It was a key piece in the push to neuter states’ rights and to collectivize power at the Federal level.
The commerce clause of the Constitution has been stretched since 1913 to confer upon Congress the power to regulate any action or event anywhere in the universe on the grounds that it might, however indirectly, affect interstate commerce. The birth of every new baby, for example, indirectly affects interstate commerce, because the parents will need to buy food, clothing, and other items. Some of such items will surely have been manufactured, warehoused, or shipped from states other than that of the baby’s residence, bringing the birth of a child within the purview of the commerce clause. There is thus theoretically no constitutional limitation upon Federal power to regulate the number of children a family is permitted to have.
It is noteworthy that very few issues of judicial activism arose prior to ratification of the 17th Amendment, because the Senate generally did its job, which was preventing passage of power-grabbing legislation. It is also noteworthy that growth of the Federal bureaucracy accelerated only after the 17th Amendment.
Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
If we'd simply backed up Germany we'd have avoided the downstream costs of WWII as well as the Cold War.
Mistakes were made eh!
--a lot of folks didn't approve of their senator being elected by the railroads either , thus the 17th amendment-----
The President and members of Congress swear to support and defend the Constitution. When they pass unconstitutional legislation we have only ourselves to blame for electing the dirtbags.
You can’t be serious.
The Eastern European community in Chicago cut a deal with Wilson ~ if they pacified their constituencies here to accept the WWI draft then Wilson would make sure their language compatriots back in the old country would get their own nationstates, to wit, Hungary, Austria, Serbia, Slovenia, Poland, etc.
In retrospect when it comes to the Middle East we were certainly ahead with the Ottomans running things ~ and they were quite willing to sell land to the Jews (starting with the Golan Heights themselves).
I try to take as an objective view of WWI as possible ~ and the British argument for our entry on their side still doesn't add up.
“a lot of folks didn’t approve of their senator being elected by the railroads either”
By the railroads? What does that mean?
Makes sense to me. Civil unrest in post WWI was largely due to economic distress that was a result of the war.
—the railroads purchased the state legislators, who then sent the railroad candidate to the senate-—
They hadn't built roads at the time so there really wasn't any alternative to them.
If you didn't pick the railroad guy to go to the Senate you would have ended up with another guy, different name, who had remarkably similar views.
Increasing the size of the electorate (from the legislators to the public at large) didn't do a whole lot ~ in many states it simply handed over the selection of the senators from the legislature to the Ku Klux Klan!
“the railroads purchased the state legislators, who then sent the railroad candidate to the senate-”
Is that significantly different from what we have today? The special interests give lots of money to certain candidates, regardless of whether they are in their state or not. Even Scott Brown got money from conservatives in other states.
-it isn’t much different—and is why I feel that this “repeal the 17th amendment” stuff is so much silliness—does anyone seriously think that the present California state legislature, for example, would elect anyone different than Boxer or Feinstein?
The irony is that while the legislature of a state has little to say about the US Senate, it can influence its congressional delegation by redrawing district lines.
—yep—and many of them have certainly done that—in a manner intended to protect incumbents, always-—
it means that senate seats were being bought by big industry especially in the small states, In Montana they were bought by the copper industry.
Over the past 60 years, Republicans have controlled the U.S. Senate a lot more than the U.S. House.
The reason? It's a lot harder to gerrymander a state.
The reason? It's a lot harder to gerrymander a state.
. . . and if anything, the state borders as they exist tend to favor the Republicans.
And even at that, Republicans can't consistently win. The reason being, that conservatives are people who have principles other than political convenience - and Democrats' principles, if such they be, align perfectly with political convenience.
Political convenience, as I define it, is nothing other than "tending to reinforce the inherent biases of wire service journalism."The inherent biases of wire service journalism include the bias that it has in rejecting the very possibility of its own bias, and the bias against individuals getting credit for the efficacy of work apart from criticism, condmenation and complaint which is the forte of journalism.
The sovereign remedy for that would be to have a single election for governor and senator - if you get elected as senator, you should serve there for four years and then serve as governor for four years. Then see how easy it is to get bills imposing unfunded mandates on the states through the Senate!
--Sharon was an interesting character, who probably deserves the overall title of "worst" senator ever, from the standpoint of constituent service--he was only present in D. C. for something like six weeks of his term, spending most of his time in San Francisco and precious little in Nevada.
--in later life he was embroiled in one of the leading sex scandals of the time, which indirectly lead to the death of another scoundrel named David Terry---.
You mean the Central Powers. The Axis was an alliance created by a pact between Germany and Italy in 1936, which Japan joined in 1940.
However, I am in agreement with you on your main point. If the US had stayed out of WWI, the conflict would likely have been settled by the Europeans themselves, as they had settled similar conflicts in the past.
By the way, many Irish-Americans were also unenthusiastic about participating in a war on behalf of their English oppressors. And most Americans were unhappy with the fact that Britain, France, Italy, Japan, and Belgium helped themselves to Gemran, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman territory, engaging in the very "imperialism" of which they had accused Germany and its allies of practicing.
Right ~ CP, not AX.
-—as more than a few pointed until the Wilson malAdministration tried to shut them down-(with some success)-if we we were making the “world safe for democracy” how about making “democracy” safe in Ireland, India and Egypt for starters-—
To address your off-topic digression, I don’t think the United States should have backed either side in the Great War. The Kaiser was not trying to conquer the world. That war was essentially a European civil war in which America had no investment in either side winning.
Indeed, if it had ended in stalemate, likely there would have been no punitive Versailles terms, no crippled Germany, no Adolph Hitler and no Second World War — at least not in Europe anyway. Perhaps then without that devastating war, Europe wouldn’t have ended up so freaking wimpy.
[We probably would have ended up fighting the Japanese regardless.]
Back on-topic, I knew that the 16th Amendment opened the door to massive federal spending and indebtedness — as well as intrusion into our personal finances. I wasn’t aware of how significant the 17th Amendment was in creating the hugely centralized and increasingly arbitrary federal gov’t under which we suffer today.
Exactly they’d choose the same scumbags or worse.
I have a rat State Senator and a rat State Rep. No Republicans ever even run for the seats. Why the hell would I wanna give my right to pick my Senator to them?