As one whom has studied the membership of that body, I’m here to tell you that these grand notions of what repeal of the 17th would bring don’t mesh with the reality. There’s a reason why that amendment was passed, and it wasn’t some grand leftist conspiracy. Senators were becoming more and more corrupt, representing their own personal interests that had next to nothing with jealousy protecting states’ rights. The Senators were either puppets or puppetmasters of individual legislatures. They had become so far removed from the people that it was what prompted a nationwide reform movement that would force some level of accountability.
A good number of legislatures today are as grossly incompetent and corrupt as can be, and are the last people who need to be deciding upon Senators. A good number of states would also cease to be able to elect a remotely reasonable GOP Senator because of an unchanged one party hegemony (which include: CA, CT, DE, HI, IL, MD, MA, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA, WV). With no worries of having to appeal to anyone beyond the ultraleft, the bulk of these states would send the most radical of members that would adhere to the blasphemous and vile social agenda and the orgiastic spending spree.
The Republican members would be chock full of mushy RINOs, big government types (such as Lt Gov. Dewhurst in TX, who bribed and bullied the state legislature to get him the Senate seat over Ted Cruz — which thankfully the PEOPLE stopped). If states like Texas would send RINOs, how do you expect it would be any better elsewhere ?
The only way you would remotely come close to the Founders vision would be to roll back the standards and requirements for voting that were in effect before the middle of the 19th century. Meaning a massive disenfranchisement of the parasitic low and no information voters that have helped to push our country to the brink of destruction. Unless you’re willing to do that, repeal of the 17th is merely an exercise in removing what few Conservatives exist in that body at present.
So some Senators as puppet masters lorded over State Legislatures? Fascinating.
They had become so far removed from the people . . .
Correct. They were designed to be removed from the people. It served our republic well.
that it was what prompted a nationwide reform movement that would force some level of accountability.
Accountability? To whom? The people? That is for the House. Democratic tyranny, which describes our consolidated government quite well, is still tyranny.
State appointed Rinos or even rat Senators would think twice about screwing state budgets with Utopian social justice dreams such as Medicaid and Obamacare. When my dirtbag Senator Bill Nelson (rat-fl) voted for Obamacare, he knew he had two years for people to forget and he could deflect any criticism with his demagogic lectures on evil pubbies that would take away their freebies.
The history of our republic reflects the wisdom of state appointed senators and the idiocy of popularly elected senators.
Sure there was corruption, but look into the scale of corruption pre- and post-1913. Congress has spent so much money in the past few years that we are over $100 trillion in debt, considering unfunded liabilities. 100 years ago, the national debt was $2.9 billion. Adjusted for inflation, that’s only $65 billion in today’s dollars.
You portray the state legislators as incompetent, but I say that the U.S. would be far better off picking 535 names at random from the phone book to run Congress - much less legislators that govern states that (compared to the federal government and excluding California and Illinois) are in relatively good shape.
And the campaign in favor of direct election of senators was a conspiracy - a democratic conspiracy. We aren’t a democracy, but a constitutional republic. There are democratic elements to our society, but pure democracy strips the rights of the individual just as easily as a tyrant - it’s just a matter of procedure.
Granted, by its passage, the 17th Amendment became as legitimate as the rest of the Constitution. There is nothing wrong with having a logical debate on whether the 17th Amendment is the best path forward for society.
Based on history and human nature, the amendment paved the way for corruption and special interest influence on a scale that was impossible to reach under the original system.
But when you strip the state’s ability to instantly recall U.S. senators that are not legislating in the state’s interests, you undermine the federalist system of shared powers between the state and federal government, and essentially create a new - and more corruptible - government.
And it’s “As one WHO has...” not “As one WHOM has...” If you’re going to insult the author, at least use proper grammar.
What I'd like to see discussed is the impact that repealing the 17th has on campaign fundraising.
As I've posted many times over the years, it's my belief that modern party bloc politics is the result of the need for 1/3rd of the Senators to have to raise millions of dollars for 33 of the most expensive elections every two years. It takes something like a National Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to oversee the NATIONAL raising of funds to be distributed across all the Senate election within the party. Senators just have to adhere to the national party platform (and NOT individual states interests) to share in the combined fundraising.
You don't see this kind of coordinated party fundraising across 435 House races. Also, you don't see a lot of sharing between the Presidential campaign fundraising and the Congressional races. So it's the 33 Senate races every two years that drives the coordinated party bloc fundraising.
Therefore, if you eliminate the need for Senate elections, I believe you will also weaken the party's hold on individual Senators to the voting bloc, because the fundraising hook is no longer there with which to threaten the Senator, like they do today.
Repealing the 17th amendment is really campaign finance reform at its purest.
-PJ