Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Repeal the 17th Amendment! It made the Senate more democratic ó and thatís not good
National Review ^ | 03/01/2013 | Charles C. W. Cooke

Posted on 03/01/2013 7:06:15 AM PST by SeekAndFind

In our grubby, unhelpful political lexicon, certain words exist solely to end conversations. The most prominent such word is “racist.” Less popular, but by no means less potent, are “democracy” and “rights.” When welded together as “democratic rights,” the pair becomes all-powerful — strong enough to send grown men spinning for the exits and to render eloquent speakers mute.

For a good example of this principle in motion, witness the orthodox reaction to anyone who calls for the repeal of the 17th Amendment. (Direct election of senators, if you’re wondering.) Removing this ugly violation from the Constitution it so corrupts is an idea that has long lingered on the fringe (there’s another of those conversation-terminating words) and, until the massive expansion of federal power that marked the past decade and woke up the sleeping libertarians, it seemed destined to remain there in perpetuity. Even now, to declare in public that you think the whole of 1913 was one long, ghastly mistake is to be looked at as if you have just announced that the United States should consider restoring the British monarchy.

Providing what may be the Platonic ideal of such dismissals, Salon’s Alex Seitz-Wald reacted to the renewed interest by declaring in 2012 that, because any increase of democracy was “unquestionably positive,” any modifications were tantamount to “doing away with rights.” America, “we’re told from a young age, is all about democracy,” Seitz-Wald wrote, “and democracy is all about choosing whom you want to be your representative and holding them accountable.” This, he added, “seems like an entirely uncontroversial idea.” I cannot account for Mr. Seitz-Wald’s grasp of America’s history, beyond saying that if he has indeed been told “from a young age” that America is “all about democracy,” then he must be forgiven for believing it. Still, whatever his schools might have told him, the United States is not in fact a democracy but a constitutional republic, and her virtues lie as much in her undemocratic institutions as in her ample provisions for self-rule — more, perhaps.

Doubt it? Look around. Despite the violence that the 17th Amendment did to it, the Senate remains a partially anti-democratic institution; the Supreme Court is an entirely undemocratic institution; the Constitution is undemocratic, too, requiring for any changes to its structure the consent of a supermajority and containing the Bill of Rights, which is as elevated and explicitly counter-majoritarian a component of national law as you will find. The strong American protections of free speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, due process, privacy, and the right to a jury trial are triumphs of minority rights. How about the absence of a state church? Not for nothing did Patrick Henry cry ardently for “liberty or death.” It is liberty, not democracy, that is America’s highest ideal.

Walter Lippmann famously observed that, at some point in their history, “the American people came to believe that their Constitution was a democratic instrument, and treated it as such.” The New York Times’ David Firestone appears to be one of these American people, arguing as he did in 2010 that “a modern appreciation of democracy” makes the idea of directly electing senators “so obvious” that any proposal of change is “unthinkable.” Putting to one side for now the narrow procedural majoritarianism inherent in his definition, Firestone’s thesis runs into two problems: America is not “modern” and it is not a “democracy.” Perish the thought.

Instead, the American system was deliberately designed to balance power between the various branches of government and to guarantee individual rights against majority rule, thus protecting the people from tyranny whether they liked it or not. The United States government was arranged in this way as a permanent bulwark against federal encroachment. “Changing times” was no more a strong justification for the undoing of this system in 1913 than it is now. And whatever the Wilson-era progressives might have held, the federal government was not intended to be a wholly separated layer of government. Instead, it was to be intertwined with the states to such an extent that it could not ride roughshod over their interests without pushback. As James Madison resolved during the debate over the Bill of Rights:

The state legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operations of this Government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power, than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a Federal government admit the State Legislatures to be sure guardians of the people’s liberty.

It is exactly here that America’s democracy fetishists go wrong. As Madison makes clear in the Federalist Papers, in order to defend the vertical checks and balances that allow America’s federal system to function, senators would be “elected absolutely and exclusively by state legislatures.” The Senate was not intended to be the people’s representative body, but that of the states. Lest the federal government “swallow up the state legislatures,” George Mason insisted to his fellow convention delegates in Philadelphia, “let the state legislatures appoint the Senate.” The delegates backed him unanimously.

It makes no more sense to argue that to return to this original arrangement would be to “take away” the “rights” of the people than it does to maintain that not being able to vote directly for Supreme Court justices violates their democracy. Everything has its place, and indulging popular sovereignty is simply not what the Senate was designed to do. One could sometimes be forgiven for thinking otherwise, but the states are not regional departments of the federal government. To ensure that they had a working mechanism by which to resist the expansion of federal power, the architects of our Constitution hard-wired the state legislatures into its structure; with the 17th Amendment, progressives pulled out that wiring like punch-drunk Jacobins.

Has there ever been a time when America was more in need of the states’ being represented in Washington? “The People” have their representatives in the House. The nation has its leader in the White House. What of the states? Andrew Napolitano has it right: The 17th Amendment, he gripes, “effectively just gave us another house like the House of Representatives . . . and the states lost their place at the federal table.” This is problematic because, to their great discredit, The People seem not greatly to care how power is structured. Who then is surprised that the abolition of the Senate as the supporting wall of federalism has led inexorably to, as Jefferson warned just before his death, “all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things,” being “drawn to Washington as the center of all power”? Returning the selection of senators to state legislatures would help to focus citizens’ eyes locally, where they belong.

“Democracy” may be the cry now. But as Alex Seitz-Wald goes on to acknowledge in his dissent, the primary argument in favor of the 17th Amendment was that it might serve to cut out corruption. Money was said to be rife in politics; direct elections would stamp it out. Lobbying by big business was staining the republic; direct elections would cut the buggers off at the knee. The small constituency that a senator served effectively gave him tenure; an amendment would make the body competitive. Bad behavior among senators was rife; the rigors of direct election would make them moral. And how are things now that the scalpel has been taken to Madison’s handiwork? There is more money in politics than ever before; direct elections have served only to cut out the middleman between lobbyists and politicians; senators rarely lose their seats; and Ted Kennedy killed a woman and got away with it.

In a brilliant Humanitas essay from 1996, C. H. Hoebeke rendered this judgment:

In retrospect, the amendment failed to accomplish what was expected of it, and in most cases failed dismally. Exorbitant expenditures, alliances with well-financed lobby groups, and electioneering sleights-of-hand have continued to characterize Senate campaigns long after the constitutional nostrum was implemented. In fact, such tendencies have grown increasingly problematic.

Americans purchased this dismal failure at the cost of their federal system’s integrity. Like the other two Progressive Era amendments that sit either side, the 17th is a testament to hubris — a parchment admonition of those who would tinker with the permanent in the name of the temporary. Nonetheless, it benefits those who would be required to amend it, which, alas, is a recipe for eternal life in Washington. Repeal is thus almost certainly a dead end; interest in such things is limited. And so the federal titan lumbers on, the states shrinking inexorably in stature. One cheer for democracy, Mr. Wilson.

— Charles C. W. Cooke is an editorial associate at National Review.



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 17thamendment; constitution; federalistpapers

1 posted on 03/01/2013 7:06:29 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Elected Senators...the worst idea that the Founders never had.

This totally worthless part of government should be brought back to its original mandate or it should be abolished.


2 posted on 03/01/2013 7:08:27 AM PST by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee

>>Elected Senators...the worst idea that the Founders never had.<<

Agreed.

It used to be (in Congress):
Executive - Presidency
House - People
Senate - States

A balance as the Founders wanted. When the accursed 17th Amendment was passed (the worst ever) we lost a large part of our freedom and the meaning of the “republic!”


3 posted on 03/01/2013 7:13:34 AM PST by freedumb2003 (I learned everything I needed to know about racism from Colin Powell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee
The Founders erred in allowing the Senate to veto legislation, or they erred in allowing the Supreme Court to veto legislation ~ or both ~

Both bodies should have been combined into an advisory board that met separately from the People's House in the capital.

The Executive should have been chosen directly by the House on an annual basis.

4 posted on 03/01/2013 7:27:38 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee

Personally I would prefer electing them but eliminating the statewide popular vote crap. Elect them with an electoral type of system where they get a certain number of votes per district.


5 posted on 03/01/2013 7:28:13 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The founders were wise enough to realize that too much democracy was just as dangerous as too little. In fact if you read many of their early writings, they were deeply suspicious of giving voters too much power. They created a system where the people had could get rid of bad leadership, but not so much that every elected official felt compelled to bow to every public whim. We see what happens when you have a party (the democrats) who have built a majority out of catering to various interest groups and the good of the nation overall be damned.
6 posted on 03/01/2013 7:38:16 AM PST by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

The worst effect of the 17th Amendment was removing the ability of the State legislature and/or the constituent Citizens, the People, to remove a Senator from office before the end of the six year term of office. This change and the virtual impossibiity for impeachment or censure of a Senator belonging to the majority party ahs made the senators virtually immune from accountability, especially if and when vote fraud rigs the elections.


7 posted on 03/01/2013 7:39:22 AM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

The worst effect of the 17th Amendment was removing the ability of the State legislature and/or the constituent Citizens, the People, to remove a Senator from office before the end of the six year term of office. This change and the virtual impossibiity for impeachment or censure of a Senator belonging to the majority party ahs made the senators virtually immune from accountability, especially if and when vote fraud rigs the elections.


8 posted on 03/01/2013 7:39:43 AM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The 17th Amendment guarantees we have one house for the people and one for millionaires only. This is not good!
9 posted on 03/01/2013 7:58:24 AM PST by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-hereQaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: apillar
The Democrats do not have a built in majorty ~ what happens here is the single member district controls everything whether it's a township, precinct, ward, county, state, ...... to win you need only 50%+1 votes so there's a powerful incentive for a party to develop that gets that amount regularly on a widespread basis.

There will, of course, be insiders who don't get their piece of the power so they will gravitate to another party that also seeks 50%+1 votes ~ over time this will become THE SYSTEM and as the parties divide up the affiliated factions over minor issues, they will even begin to look like each other.

If you want to change America you create multi-member districts and you will move coalition politics into the Congress and the state legislatures. Within weeks you will have 50 to 1000 political parties.

If you reflect on what you said you are looking back nostalgically to the Federalist point of view ~ they imagined that if only men of property and education selected the officers of government everything would be just peachy ~ for them ~ forever.

Jefferson knocked that idea in the head and the Federalists faded from the political scene!.

10 posted on 03/01/2013 7:58:40 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Here in Michigan it means that Detroit and Flint elect Levincow for the rest of us.


11 posted on 03/01/2013 8:02:27 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

ping


12 posted on 03/01/2013 8:22:44 AM PST by Parmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

In a democratic republic it is appropriate for the majoroty to have the right to be represened by someone who represents their interests, but it also appropriate for the minority to have the pwoer to limit their representaton to the constitutional authority and hold those representatives accountable for usurpations o fconstitutional authority. and inalienable rights. The current situation permits democratic representation, whenever vote fraud does no intervene; but what is absent since the 17th Amendment is the power to hold those representatives accountable for usurpations of constitutional authority and inalienable rights of the state government and the People reserved by the constitutions. There is also the lack of accountability and punishment of vote fraud and elections rigging.


13 posted on 03/01/2013 8:29:49 AM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
There is actually a more attractive argument for hierarchical Federalism: improved representation, but only if a particularly abominable SCOTUS rulings are overturned.

The correct republican architecture of our governments would be if county boards of supervisors selected state senators, just as the States were to pick the US Senators. That way, if I had a good idea, I'd have a fairly direct line to the US Senate via my local County supervisor. This way of channeling information IMPROVES access to the highest levels, just as it does by respecting State sovereignty.

The grounds for the case? Article IV, Section. 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,

Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr forced equal apportionment in every State Senate. They need to be tossed every bit as much as the 17th Amendment.
14 posted on 03/01/2013 8:08:56 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be "protected" by government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Even now, to declare in public that you think the whole of 1913 was one long, ghastly mistake is to be looked at as if you have just announced that the United States should consider restoring the British monarchy.

IMHO, we are at the point where a monarchy would be a definite improvement!

15 posted on 03/01/2013 8:09:42 PM PST by upchuck (nobama fact #69: For each job created by the nobama administration, 75 people went on food stamps.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
The author waits until the very end of the piece to make the point that the point of having 2 senators from each state is to represent the state's interests. That doesn't exist in the proper context anymore. Now it's more like bringing home the pork for the people as to secure another term.

2 years ago I was trying to be open minded and started reading a book Larry Sabado wrote about constitutional reforms he personally thought made sense. When I read his plan for how to "fix" the "shortcomings" of 17A... and his "solution" was to have the senators still elected by popular vote... but expanded it by having more populous states being given more votes in the senate... for a "purer democracy" or whatever this alleged Constitutional Scholar wanted... I stopped reading... too the book to the door, and through it out in the yard. Total garbage. not worth the $3 I paid for it at Big Lots. Not worth anyone's time to read it, unless you want to see exactly how ignorant an "expert" can be... this guy should not be allowed to teach.

16 posted on 03/01/2013 11:25:05 PM PST by Rodamala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: apillar
The founders were wise enough to realize that too much democracy was just as dangerous as too little.

As James Madison posited a month before the Constitutional Convention:

"The great desideratum in Government is such a modification of the Sovereignty as will render it sufficiently neutral between the different interests and factions, to control one part of the Society from invading the rights of another, and at the same time sufficiently controlled itself, from setting up an interest adverse to that of the whole Society."

17 posted on 03/02/2013 3:24:41 PM PST by Jacquerie ("How few were left who had seen the republic!" - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
The worst effect of the 17th Amendment was removing the ability of the State legislature and/or the constituent Citizens, the People, to remove a Senator from office before the end of the six year term of office.

Senators had 6-year terms even before the 17th Amendment. Once the state legislature elected a Senator, they had no power to remove him before his 6-year term was up.

18 posted on 03/02/2013 3:24:45 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson