No one really seems to offer up the “why” for the 17A. If for some 120 years senators came from appointments by states’ legislatures, then why the popular change to direct leelction by the masses?
There must be a political “raison d’etre” for the radical change.
It may have been the fed gov was seeing lot’s of popular interest in change from republican process towards progressivism and the direct election of senators would be favorable to the tide change of policy regarding the rule of law and progressive policy shift.
Just as FRD stacked the courts because he could, to facilitate a tide change on SCOTUS policy, the switch from legislative appointment to direct election had to have a reason.
Indeed, while the 17A had to be ratified by a certain number of state legislatures, I would think the list of those who so did in early and rapid succession would be telling. Perhaps NY, CA, CN, MA, NJ, VT, ME etc ( my speculation) moved quickly to ratify and eventually enough momentum was gained to assure ratification. Same method being used today regarding “social justice issues” like “same sex this and illegal immigrant that”.
Too bad. The election of state legislators who then appointed US senators indeed was a check and balance of popular wind driven shift of power in the US gov. To our chagrin.
<>The election of state legislators who then appointed US senators indeed was a check and balance of popular wind driven shift of power in the US gov. To our chagrin.<>
That’s why the Framers’ cautiousness (two per state, not recallable, salaries paid by fed gov) with the senate should be done away with. Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments would super-federalize the government and provided excellent state level checks on congress and the scotus.