Bump.
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.
A Republican legislator believes the legislature should pick the state's U.S. senators instead of having them directly elected.
Gilby Representative Tom Brusegaard has introduced a resolution...asking for the repeal of the 17th amendment to the constitution. That amendment allowed for direct election of senators. Brusegaard told the House Government and Veterans Affairs Committee that a U.S. Senator picked by the state's lawmakers would be more responsive to state needs -- rather than individual wants:
"The people have one body in Washington, D.C. - the House of Representatives that is specifically engineered to be very responsive. Every two years we turn over a body, very responsive to their will and I tend to believe or tend to think that as the framers intended in the constitution, state governments need a separate body with a different focus to work in conjunction with the people who provide a product that not only addresses their concerns, but addresses their concerns in a way that uses or helps state governments fix those problems."
But House Minority Leader Merle Boucher says taking away the direct election of U.S. Senators would diminish the power of the people...and ultimately the power of that body:
"But I ask you to think : are we moving in an evolutionary process where our United States Senate will some day be like the House of Lords in England and like the Senate in Canada, our neighbors to the north? That as we choose them in the state legislatures rather than elect them by the people of the states, are we then going to diminish the power and position of this particular house of government?"
(N-SEN-NEW-1A--"HOUSE OF GOVERNMENT"--:32)
If the legislature would pass such a resolution, it would have to be ratified by Congress, as well as by the vast majority of states, before it became reality.
The previous threads are here at Seventeenth Amendment - Structural Error Thread Two
Anyone who knows anything about this North Dakota Legislator please chime in. I have some other recent items that haven't been in the previous threads, which I will add as time allows.
Recently the Republican Party in Utah considered this:
Resolution on Restoring Balance by Repealing the 17th AmendmentResolution on Restoring Balance by Repealing the 17th Amendment
By Dale Ure (Washington County)
Whereas, this nation, the greatest in history, was founded on a newly written Constitution, establishing that the right to govern comes from the governed - the right of the people to rule themselves, recognizing that this right is protected by the balance of power as originally set for in the Constitution of the United States of America, and
Whereas, the states are to have direct control over ownership of guns, not the Federal Government, and
Whereas, the states are to have direct control over land, its resources and its usage, and not the Federal Government, and
Whereas, the states are to have direct control over marriage, abortion, homosexuality, and moral issues, and not the Federal Government, and
Whereas, the states are to have direct control over how and what we teach our children, all health issues, and how we regulate business, not the Federal Government, and
Whereas, endless government programs were born, and states lost Senate accountability with ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, and
Whereas, the 17th Amendment duplicated the people’s representation and eliminated States’ representation along with the states’ checks and balances over the federal government, and whereas other states are joining with Utah in the effort to repeal the 17th Amendment, and restore states ability to control their own destinies,
Now therefore, we, the people of the Utah Republican Party gathered in Convention, do resolve that the Utah Republican Party adopts this resolution:
To restore and preserve states’ rights, we support an amendment to repeal the 17th Amendment of the United States Constitution in its entirety and restore the original Article 1 Section 3.1: "The Senate of the United States will be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years. Each Senator will have one vote." With this resolve we dedicate all reasonable means to invite other states to join us in this urgent matter.
Be it therefore further resolved, that the repeal of the 17th Amendment and restoration of Article 1 Section 3.1 of the United States Constitution should be included in the Utah Republican Party State Party Platform.
A big big step in the right direction.
A step back toward a republic.
It seems the Constitution Party had things brought forward on this in N. Dakota as well. Reported from Minot:
MINOT DAILY NEWS -- OPINION COLUMNHey, what are those crazy VRWC people in N. Dakota doing? Are they trying to restore the Constitution?
By: Robert L. Hale c In Defense Of Repealing The 17th Amendment MINOT DAILY NEWS -- OPINION COLUMN By: Robert L. Hale In Defense Of Repealing The 17th AmendmentGoodness!!! Seems a raw nerve was hit amongst those who love federal control over your life and mine. In a recent column I advanced the notion that we repeal the 17th Amendment.
The 17th Amendment changed the way U.S. Senators were chosen. The Founding Fathers called for election of U.S. Senators by the legislative body of each state, and U.S. Representatives by the citizens of each state. The decision to elect congressional representatives in this manner reflected the Founding Fathers’ desire to establish a federal republic. Their purpose was to insure strong state governments and a limited federal government. They understood that citizens could only have true freedom and exercise their democratic rights if there was limited government, particularly limited central government.
Unfortunately our public education system has done a less than admirable job of educating the last several generations about our original republican form of government. Most citizens have little or no understanding of the political philosophy on which the Founding Fathers structured the federal government. The net result of inadequate education has been a fantastically expanded, intrusive, expensive and bureaucratic central government.
Shrill condemnations and personal attacks of the very suggestion we repeal the 17th Amendment ring hollow. Responses to the suggestion we return to a true federal republic and freedom from central government controls and mandates demonstrate the point.
Two objections were offered in defense of the 17th Amendment. First, the observation that it was initiated because of corrupt state legislatures doing the bidding of the railroads and second, repeal would be "anti-democratic".
Actually, corrupt state legislatures had little to do with the call for or passage of the 17th Amendment. While that was one of the legitimate arguments used to advance the Amendment, by 1913 the corruption and plunder of public property and taxes wrought by the public/private railroad consortium had peaked and was in retreat.
Sadly the lessons that should have been learned from the public/private railroad schemes seem to have been forgotten. Public/private partnership schemes are again being foisted upon us as taxpayers. The net result will be the same today as it was at the turn of the century. Taxpayers fund private special interest ventures and schemes, while getting none of the returns and being stuck with all the debts.
The impetus behind the push for and passage of the 17th Amendment came from an adoring media that created a clamor for what has been called "Wilsonian Democracy". This concept espoused the idea that direct election of all federal legislative offices would enhance federal accountability. Eighty-seven years later it is clear this is not the case.
Freeing the federal government from state legislative accountability and giving the federal government the right to directly tax each and every one of us has effectively stripped us of any meaningful control over our earnings and what rules are imposed on us.
States have become willing vassals of the federal government. Our Founding Fathers sought a subordinate federal government and designed our constitution to insure that was so. The 17th Amendment reversed the roles. Federalism is, in fact, dead today and is badly in need of resurrection. If we want true freedom in which to exercise our democratic rights we must revive a true federal government.
I applaud the imagination of those who maintain the fantasy that being able to vote for "their" U.S. Senator gives them any meaningful control over what that person does in Washington D.C. The fact of the matter is when anyone is answerable to "everyone" they are really answerable to noone.
The Senate was designed to be answerable to the state legislatures and the House to the individual voters. With the 17th Amendment states lost their voice in Washington D.C. I wonder how much influence North Dakota voters actually have with Senators, regardless of party affiliation, who receive over 90% of their campaign support from out of state donors? Repeal of the 17th Amendment would initiate REAL and meaningful campaign finance reform. It would also make the federal government again accountable to the states.
Democracy is a fiction when one governmental institution becomes too powerful. The federal government is too powerful.
Those who engage in shrill rhetoric and personal attacks in an effort to stop debate pose a great threat to self-government. Let’s initiate the Amendment process and let meaningful debate proceed.
He doesn't need to "repeal", he only needs to bring a lawsuit challenging the 17th amendment - it wasn't properly ratified.
Thanks. Read back on the old threads as linked above...there is some good information there.
I need some education here. Why is the direct election of Senators a bad thing and if so, what was the reason for the change in the first place?
Hurrah for the Republic. This is the only method to return power to the States and at the same time get the people of the States to treat their State Legislator races as important instead of unknown crooks.
How come all of our Senators now look like used car salesman (sorry for the unfavorable comparison for you used car salesmen). When was the last time we had a Henry Clay, a Stephen Douglas, or John Calhoun? A long damn time.
This is where we made the wrong turn and its great to hear this story. But it ain't never going to happen because the people will never examine the deep arguments for it and will only pay attention to the soundbite shallow arguments against it.
It would be great work if they could do it. But it will be very hard to do. Given most politicians' fear of offending women, I thought the ERA amendment was a sure winner at the time, yet it failed to pass, despite the enormous pressures behind it. The framers deliberately made amendments hard to pass. The real pity is that the 17th was ever passed in the first place.
No harm trying to repeal it, however.
I am familiar with your information, but I consider that unworkable. Whether it was done correctly at the time, the Pliebisite Mobocracy has the nation hooked on this for the last Nine Decades. They have the "farm" by "adverse possesion" and nothing will restore it except a rightful amendment to right the wrong as carried out over the last century. The Court won't reverse based on clouded status when the fiat has been used for a century.
He doesn't need to "repeal", he only needs to bring a lawsuit challenging the 17th amendment - it wasn't properly ratified.
How so? I'm aware that the Seventeenth Amendment was not ratified unanimously, but I'm aware of nothing that indicates it cannot be binding on those states which have ratified it. As for the states that were part of the Union when it was ratified but declined to ratify, those states should be exempt from its effect.
I'm for it. Direct election of US senators is a sham and a shame. Senators appointed by the governor and comformed by the state house of represenatives is that way it was before the 17th amendment.
It makes it easier to get rid of a dumbkopf like Boxer, or a one world socialist like Daschle.
Well, from my understanding, the major reason is the lack of accountability. As you know Senate races are popularity contests.
All great journeys, start with the first hesitant steps. I hope that this can become a surprising interest of Conservatives, Republicans, Constitution Party members and Libertarians.
A Republican legislator believes the legislature should pick the state's U.S. senators instead of having them directly elected.
Excellent idea!
I have often thought that , if possible, this might be the very thing to restore legal government. A big Bump
It would be difficult, but was bringing Clinton up for Impeachment a cake walk? LOL, this site can stir the pot.
Bump.
bump
Read the prior threads...they have a lot of good information. Thanks
Excellent idea!
From the republicans? No way?!?!? < /sarcasm>
The 17th Amendment was a mistake. The Framers intended that Government have naturally lethargic components to moderate the mercurial will of the People. The House was supposed to react to our will in the short term while the Senate was to moderate that will over a longer period of time. Think of it as "time averaging". Hence taxes originate in the House, the body most subject to the instananeous wrath of the People. Treaties, on the other hand, that may affect us for generations are the business of the Senate. Using the elected members of the State Legislatures to pick Senators gives us that time averaging effect. The process also gave us Senators that were better at the "inside baseball" aspects of State politics and more in touch with State issues rather than campaigners out to con a majority of the People once every 6 years. (Here in CA, it would mean that I would probably still have two Democrats, but not brainless hustlers like Boxer and Feinstein.) The political makeup of a State's Senate delegation reflected long term shifts in the political makeup of the Legislature. The political makeup of the House was to reflect short term shifts in our political temperament. With the 17th Amendment, we've lost that averaging effect and gained political con men out to trick 50%+1 of their State every 6 years.
Shoulda known this would come from a state house--the federales certainly wouldn't approve of this on their own.
Going back to the Federalists Papers, the Senate existed for a reason and that was to cool the passions of the House (to paraphase George Washington). The House, elected directly by the people, was apt to be more heated and passionate, thereby passing measures which could be unconstitutional, etc. The Senate, not being directly responsible to the people, could look at the actions taken by the House and modify them or reject them, if necessary.
A Big BUMP! for states rights
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I wondered why the constitution had been changed to allow the "sheeple" to pick the U.S. Senators. Obviously a liberal power play.
Redcloak said it a little better than I did.
The ablolute highest priority must be to REPEAL THE 16th AMENDMENDMENT.
A16 is the one that allows the Federal Vampire to insert a needle into the vein of the people and suck the living blood out from their labor in the form of income taxes.
WITHHOLDING makes it painless, much like the vampire bat injects a narcotic into it's prey in order to sedate, facilitating maximal transfer of blood.
The Senators are in office for a longer period of time, as well. They were supposed to be appointed so their loyalty would be TO the states instead of concentrating the power in Washington, DC. And that's what you have, an out of control federal government trampling on state's rights with the power concentrated in DC.
The 17th could be repealed, but it would take a massive effort in state legislatures. I'm all for it.
I'm still trying....from Colorado there has been a lot of effort as well...OF COURSE IT WASN'T AS GOOD AS ONE OF YOUR OLD TIME RANTS:
Guest ColumnCopyright 1999 American City Business Journals Inc.Scrap 17th Amendment
Junius W. Peake"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
-- Edmund BurkeAs the impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton moves from the House to the Senate for trial, it might be useful to note that the dynamics of the process have changed dramatically since the founders wrote our original Constitution.
As originally written, the legislative branch of government was divided into two parts: the House, as representatives of the people; and the Senate, representing the individual states of the Union. In 1913, during a spate of populism, the Senate was changed from representing the interest of the states by the election of senators by the branch of each state's legislature having the most numerous members, to a smaller people's house, with direct elections of two senators from each state by its citizens.
The framers of the Constitution knew that the House of Representatives would be volatile and sway to the winds of public opinion and passion; they required biennial elections for its members. In addition, for an impeachment, including that of the president, they required that only a majority of those members present in the House could do so. Because we have operated in a two-party system for almost two centuries, one or the other party often had a slim majority.
The founders thus recognized the possibility of impeachment being used as a partisan weapon. Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers, wrote that there will be: "animosities, partialities, influence and interest on one side or the other." He went on to say: "there will always be the greatest dangers that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."
That is the reason the Constitution provides that upon impeachment by the House, there must be a trial by the Senate, presided by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, in order for the removal of an officeholder. To prevent anti-administration zealots from discarding a president capriciously, they insisted that at least two-thirds of those senators present and voting decide whether the impeachment should result in conviction. And they expected that those senators voting for or against conviction would represent the political interests of the states, not of the populace. The people's representatives would already have spoken in the House. Because senators were then elected by the state legislatures, states' interests would have to be paramount before removal of a president.
On Dec. 19, a majority of the members of the House voted two articles of impeachment against President William Jefferson Clinton. Arguing that these votes are somehow against the intent of the Constitution is specious. The result was exactly what Hamilton and the other founders designed. They also expected that the Senate would then conduct the dignified trial called for by the Constitution.
But, thanks to the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, this concept has been emasculated. Instead of senators deliberating and representing the interests of their states, they are now a clone of the House of Representatives. This is a serious flaw in our system of checks and balances. The founders got it right; we are a republic, not a democracy. We are a collection of sovereign states which voluntarily delegated certain of their powers to a central government. That fact is too often forgotten, at our peril. Today's situation, in which the mantra of listen to the will of the people for making important decisions is defined as accepting spur-of-the-moment public-opinion polls from a random sample of the populace, has displaced having our elected representatives use their wisdom and judgment.
Unfortunately, too few of our citizens know much about our Constitution and the separation of powers among the three branches of government that made this nation the world's greatest. What a shame. Once again, I call for the repeal of the 17th Amendment.
Junius W. Peake is the Monfort Distinguished Professor of Finance at the University of Northern Colorado and a member of the Business Journal's board of editorial contributors.
The url for this one is HERE ....AT LEAST IT WAS FROM THE RIGHT AREA OF THE COUNTRY!!!
This State Representative sounds like a man after your own heart.
Repeal the 17th (and 16th) bump!!
So the US Senate would change with each change in the State Government make-up? How often would an individual Senator be up for re-confirmation if the state Government stayed with one party for decades?
Your paragraph is a great summary. Who's got some more information?
Hey Texas, greetings. The reason its bad is because the country is a Federal Republic, and the Senate is the representative of those States as semi-sovereign entities.
When the State Legislatures select the ambassador from their State they are more likely to pick the most statesmanlike person they can find to reflect well on their choice. Thus we have a Stephen Douglas, a Henry Clay, or a John Calhoun. Towering statesmen that we haven't seen the likes of since the 17th Amendment. Under direct election we end up with a Hillary, a Schumer, etc.
In addition, statewide Senate races are grossly expensive. Before the 17th Amendment potential Senators did not have to spend 95% of their time prostituting themselves for campaign funds. They could afford to be statesmen.
They were also shielded from the corrosive affects of special interest groups. No matter how loud a special interest group became they would have little effect on Senators who instead kept their job by maintaining the support of "Joe Legislator from Pickleville".
It helps keep our national government local because if you want to complain about your Senator you can pick up the phone and make a local call to your State Legislator, or better yet, just drive over and knock on his door and express your dismay. Whereas now, you better get you a lobbyist who lives in Washington DC. State Legislators become lobbyists for YOUR locale.
Special interest groups suddenly will have to concentrate on 50 State legislatures (which makes sense since this is supposed to be a Federal Republic) thus preventing them from weilding an influence far greater than their numbers by stationing a single campaign money man in Washington.
It also establishes the State Legislature as a watchdog on your Senator and therefore the Federal government.
And finally, it helps keep a Senate race from becoming a "run up the vote" contest in the urban areas in a State depending on how your State Constitution allocates State Legislators.
This method of selecting Senators is not perfect. There can be problems with it if you were to ignore what your State Legislature does like most citizens do today. But it was good enough for the founding fathers, they explain it well enough in the Federalist Papers, and it generated some great figures in our history. And then there is Hillary...
Hey even a broken clock is right twice a day :)
And then there is Hillary
Hell you have sold me! LOL
So the US Senate would change with each change in the State Government make-up? How often would an individual Senator be up for re-confirmation if the state Government stayed with one party for decades?
Keep in mind that Senators are elected every six years, so he would not be replaced everytime there was a change in the make-up of state government.
Shoulda known this would come from a state house--the federales certainly wouldn't approve of this on their own.
I am aware of some efforts and discussion in the following states:
Arizona
Kansas
Colorado
North Dakota
Anyone know of others. We shouldn't look to the Feds for any of this.
I need some education here. Why is the direct election of Senators a bad thing and if so, what was the reason for the change in the first place?
There are two problems with direct popular election of Senators:
Keep in mind that Senators are elected every six years, so he would not be replaced everytime there was a change in the make-up of state government
Thanks I have read a lot of the links and am a little better informed. It is just that I had never given this particular issue much thought. I guess my first impression would be that you could end up with 100 wannabe Chief Justices but then again we have 100 wannabe Presidents so I guess it is a wash. I am sure there could be a 1000 different arguments on both sides and I am just as sure that they have been made already.
Utah is one of the states that never ratified the 17th. Good for them!!! Yes, by all means, repeal the 17th!
From Federalist #62
Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.
The Discussion of the Senate begins in Federalists #62 courtesy of the Avalon Project
Please note, btw, that while the Senate may look like it's 50/50, it's actually majority-liberal; some "Republicans" simply haven't admitted that
Ain't that the awful truth? LOL
I need some education here. Why is the direct election of Senators a bad thing and if so, what was the reason for the change in the first place?
Having the Senate elected by the State's legislature is intended to insulate the Senate from public sentiment, since they would not be seeking votes from the public. For instance, the argument goes that perhaps Senators would have been more inclined to vote for Klynton's impeachment if they were not seeking votes from the public in the next election.
Re: #42 provides a link to the Federalist Papers
How about this: instead of 2 appointed Senators, let the 50 state Governors perform this task. A Senate comprised of our 50 Governors could not help but represent state interests. But if we revert back to an appointed Senate, lets have only one, not two, Senators. This avoids the possibility of two guys from the same state voting opposite of each other, thereby canceling out the state's voice in the Senate. If we change it, let's improve it !!!
I'm convinced you Libs have a propaganda book now. That's the third time I've heard that from one of you.
Thanks for the Federalist quote. We can talk about the benefits of the old method for selecting Senators all day and still not come close to the plain sense in one paragraph of the founding fathers.
Excellent. May I add that I believe direct elections of senators also violates a separation of powers issue. Perhaps I am mislead, but besides the usual (Federal) understanding of seperate powers, there exists a Federal, State, Individual power structure as well. By removing the legislatures role in determining a Senator, this balance was destroyed.
I believe it was Ben Franklin who was asked why a state elected senator. He responded (paraphrased cannot remember exact quote), "Just as one pours a cup of tea into a saucer to cool, so does this constitution to cool legislation."
This is very interesting. I had no idea. How do we proceed?
You are quite welcome.
It was actually Washington who made that comment in response to Jefferson's question, "Why do we need a Senate?"
Hey I like that idea!
The senate is now just like the house of Reps in that it is elected by the popular vote. This makes them populists. A good example of why this is wrong took place recently when the Senate failed to have a full blown trial over the impeachment of Mr. Clintoon. They put their finger in the air and found out that Mr. Klintoon was a very popular criminal so they elected to overlook having a trial because they wanted to be sure they were reelected by the people. If our elected state legislatures had the responsibility of selecting the Senators they would be more insulated from the popular vote and could act more like statesmen. That would be a switch wouldn't it?
Re: #42 provides a link to the Federalist Papers
Thanks
I dont know if I've ever said that on here. Seen a couple other people post that.
Considering i'm not even an LPer (yet), I'm definately not getting a 'propaganda' book heh
Sure. Anytime.
That would be a switch wouldn't it?
Really funny how all those old dead White Guys did so well without an NEA education isn't it?
I dont know if I've ever said that on here.
That's my point. If it were only you saying it, I would just think you are struggling for material. But ever time I hear it it is from someone new.
Oh, I've heard it from R's on here as well referring to Ds
As our founding fathers warned us, a democracy quickly degenerates into mob rule in which the public falls prey to the charms of the sociopathic power-mongers! Today, the sociopathic politician reaches right into your living, using TV to pull his con job on the mindless viewer.
Thank you! Been quite a while since I read this. I KNEW I had read something like it, but wasn't quite sure who said it. Took a guess, ended up as a brain fart. Such is life *HA
oh, ok then.
Thanks for the bump Jim. I know this topic is near and dear to you. I found that the youth at NeoPolitique, the e-site of students at Regents University, Robertson School of government have a good article as well. You might want to jot down their url, the site is HERE and the article is a good history although not an outright call for repeal:
Far Reaching and Forgotten: The 17th AmendmentBy Nathan Lehman
The Amendment Process
The Constitutional Convention of 1787, representing the collective wisdom of generations of political philosophers, gave the United States a unique form of government. The clauses of the Constitution were the product of stringent debate and purposeful deliberation, and every granted power, limitation, and operational mechanism chosen by the Founders was judged to be superior to the available alternatives.
The Founders also recognized that their foresight was limited, so they provided two options for making legitimate changes in the form of government they created. Of these two legitimate methods, amendments and constitutional conventions, only the amendment process has been used successfully; there are presently twenty-six ratified Constitutional Amendments. The Seventeenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, changed the method of selecting senators from election by state legislatures to popular election. This change was made during the height of the Progressive Era, a populist movement that sought increased suffrage, a bigger role for government, and other democratic reforms.
Problems with Election of Senators
Prior to the 1913 ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, several problems developed with the state legislature method of senator selection, providing needed ammunition for the progressives who were seeking direct election of senators. One of the first problems to present itself during senator selection was "deadlocks" between the upper and lower chambers in state legislatures. States that selected senators by having each house of their legislature meet separately were more prone to impasses. The problem was compounded further when a state’s chambers were controlled by different parties. The deadlocks began occurring with greater frequency throughout the first half of the nineteenth century, resulting in a few states without proper representation in the Senate. The House of Representatives first introduced a resolution calling for direct election of senators in 1826. [1]
In 1865, New Jersey sent John Stockton to the Senate under a cloud of controversy. Because he had been elected by a plurality rather than a majority in a joint session of New Jersey’s legislature, Stockton’s arrival in Washington sparked intense debate on senatorial selection. To support his cause, Stockton produced a "state-by-state analysis of senatorial election processes" that, in author and historian Robert Byrd’s view, "established beyond question that senatorial election procedures in the United States represented a snarl of inconsistencies and mismanagement." [2]
Congress intervened in 1886 by passing a law that regulated the "time and procedure for electing United States senators." The law required that each state house meet separately, and by open vote they were each to name a senator. Then if the two chambers had not chosen the same individual, the two houses were to meet in joint session every day until a prospective senator received a majority vote. [3]
This law, the first modification of the original process created by the Founders, failed to remedy the deadlocks. The requirement of a joint session, while arguably more "democratic," circumvented the Framers’ preference of separate sessions so that the two state houses could serve as a check on one another. [4] Ironically, the law encouraged the problem it was designed to solve. Deadlocks increased markedly after its passage, forty-five occurred between 1891 and 1905 in just twenty states. One authority put the blame on the statute’s requirement of a majority rather than a plurality of votes. [5]
Other problems increased as well. Before 1866, only one case of bribery in senator selection was brought to the Senate. By 1906, nine new cases of bribery were presented to the Senate. [6] Many states also experienced a ridiculous splintering of interests and frustrating stubbornness on the part of their state legislators. Delaware suffered several gaps in its senatorial representation, lasting from two to four years. North Carolina had eighty-five different candidates for the Senate receive votes in 1903, and a 1905 election in Missouri resulted in a near riot. Colorado’s experience was worse, however; in one senatorial contest, the Democrats called the Denver police and the Republicans called for soldiers from the governor to maintain order. [7]
The 17th Amendment
From the 1870s on, citizen pressure for direct election intensified. The House of Representatives began passing "popular election" joint resolutions by the required two-thirds margins in the early 1890s. [8] By 1902, the House had passed nineteen resolutions calling for direct election. Due to serious opposition, the bills were not even allowed on the Senate floor until 1887. [9]
The states were active as well. Using popular referenda, the people of Oregon engineered a system to force their legislators to select whoever won the popular senatorial vote. In 1907, the Oregon legislature chose two senators within twenty minutes. This "success" resulted in other states following Oregon’s example. [10] The states applied the most intense pressure through calls for a Constitutional Convention. Stephen Schechter, a writer who specializes in American federalism, credits the convention calls with "forcing" the Seventeenth Amendment, the only amendment compelled in this manner. [11] Between 1893 and 1911, thirty-one of the thirty-two required states submitted applications for a convention for the purpose of obtaining the popular election of senators. [12]
After much legislative maneuvering, a "popular election" constitutional amendment passed through both the House and the Senate, and subsequently was sent to the state legislatures in 1912. On April 8, 1913, Connecticut became the thirty-sixth state to ratify the amendment, and the direct election of senators became an official part of the Constitution. [13] The entire ratification process took a little less than a year to complete.
The Seventeenth Amendment enjoyed widespread popular support at the time of its ratification. Pressure for the Amendment was exerted by state legislatures, the media, the House of Representatives, and the people at large. Despite claims to the contrary, the Seventeenth Amendment fundamentally altered the federal structure of government created by the Founders. [14] The direct election of senators eliminated the states’ representation as separate entities in the national government, and in so doing it upset the precarious balance of power between the states and the federal government.
Problems with the 17th Amendment
The Founders had good reasons for choosing to have senators selected by the state legislatures. During the 1787 Constitutional convention, several of the delegates were notable in their support of this method. John Dickinson, a Delaware lawyer and politician, was the delegate who proposed selection by state legislature. He argued that "the sense of the States would be better collected through their Governments," and that the result would be a Senate made of the "most distinguished characters." He stated: "The preservation of the States in a certain degree of agency is indispensable. It will produce the collision between the different authorities that should be wished for in order to check each other." Dickinson predicted that eliminating the states’ agency (representation) in the national government would be "ruinous," and would result in the national government operating as "one great current" without restraint. [15]
Elbridge Gerry, a delegate from Massachusetts, also favored the indirect election of senators because it would be a "check in favor of the commercial interest against the landed." He thought that if both houses were elected by the people, "oppression will take place," and predicted that "free government" would not last. Gerry believed the Senate should represent the interests of business, the House the interests of the people at large, and both would act as a check upon the other. [16]
James Madison, the great constitutional theorist and "Father of the Constitution," wrote in The Federalist that an indirectly elected Senate would act as "a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions," and "blend stability with liberty." [17] He viewed the state governments’ role in electing senators as a necessity in securing the unique character and interests of that legislative body. The Senate was designed to be a cautious and deliberate check to the sometimes dangerous whims of the people that would find their expression in the House of Representatives. [18]
Dickinson and Gerry’s predictions of what would result if the Senate did not function as a check on the House have proven accurate in post-Seventeenth Amendment America. Today, "the people" are represented by both houses of Congress, and businesses are oppressed by enormous tax and regulatory burdens. Rather than checking each other, the House and Senate often act in concert; as "one current" they assume greater and greater control over the lives of the American people.
With the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, power has shifted decisively toward the federal government. The vitally important check the Senate provided against the House no longer exists, and the states are no longer represented in the national government. As a result, the federal government has imposed oppressive burdens on both the states and the people.
The problems that led to the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment did not require fundamental change. The Founders intentionally created a system of government with built-in tension. They framed a government that was to be deliberative and unobtrusive on the ordinary lives of its citizens. The federal government was to be responsive to both the states and the people, not just the people at large. Rather than creating a pure democracy, the Founders created a democratic republic.
The Founders' Plan
A central part o