Posted on 12/21/2017 12:54:36 AM PST by Jacquerie
In continuance of the Senate of the States series, the next three squibs leave the Federal Convention and visit the decades leading to the destructive 17th Amendment (17A).
The 17A triggered a cascade of stunning downwind consequences, perhaps only second in effect to the immediate post-Civil War amendments. As opposed to the 13th 15th Amendments which reset society, the 17A reset our republican governing form. Overnight, the 17A transformed the Framers exquisite compound democratic/federal structure into a democratic form deadly to republics.1
Why the 17th Amendment? What enormous forces convinced the people, states, and congress to trade a proven, stable governing form for an unstable and dangerous system?
Perhaps from the moment New Hampshire, the ninth state, ratified the Constitution in June 1788, the freedom-enhancing lessons of indirect elections began to wane in our national psyche. Tocqueville wrote, Men living in democratic ages do not readily comprehend the utility of forms . . . (in fact,) they feel an instinctive contempt for them. In 1838, Abraham Lincoln lamented diminishing appreciation of the principles and protections afforded in the Constitution.2
After the first congressional resolution (1826) to democratize senatorial elections, 187 similar resolutions followed over the next eighty-six years. Federalism, the concept of two governments sharing responsibility over the same geographic area, and made real by a senate appointed by state legislatures, was not only not an issue, proponents of direct elections studiously avoided it.3 Once the late 19th and early 20th century progressives took up the cause, the public soon embraced the notion that the solution to the ills of democracy was ever-more democracy.4
What were these perceived ills? In the decades following the Civil War, the people gradually associated indirect election of senators with an outmoded, plutocratic Constitution . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at articlevblog.com ...
The Senate was not a mess as it is today. And the States had a lot of power whereas today they have none.
The local state legislator is a neighbor who can’t run and hide. The US Senator can hide and send you weasel words. You have ZERO power over a US Senator unless you’re a one percenter.
As for people repealing the 17th, they will do so when they are offered to trade a vote to elect for a vote to recall; a power to fire rather than hire. Recall empowers, places people on the preferred board, rather than as common shareholders. Recall is much, much more powerful.
Yes, duly noted in footnote #1.
You had a rough time in school, huh?
That's odd, last time I checked, my state senator is a Chicago DemocRAT who was gerrymandered into a mostly suburban district. The 20% of the district in the city is in an ultra Democrat turf that votes 95% D so they get to dictate who "represents" the rest of us, regardless of how the REST of the district votes.
He had no problem "running and hiding" from his constituents when he made some statement about shutting down home schooling in this state and we tried to melt down the phone lines in his Springfield office. Very rarely does he EVER meet with "his" constituents in the suburbs. He's a loyal Mike Madigan puppet and pretty much rubber stamps whatever the Illinois House Speaker tells him to, despite being a member of the other house.
Sorry reality doesn't gel with your talking points.
Ironic. You realize Recall was started during the SAME "progressive era" from 1913-1917 that the 16th and 17th amendment came out of, right? Yep, the SAME era you're claiming that ANYTHING created during that time period is AUTOMATICALLY evil because Woodrow Wilson was President.
The framers of the U.S. constitution considered the possibility of allowing Recall of federal and state officials, but REJECTED it. They strongly felt politicians should only be removed by impeachment, so that is what became the law of the land in 1787.
In the early 20th century, the Progressive Movement, especially in western states, sought more direct democracy by promoting the enactment of Recall laws. California lead the effort in 1912, a product of "progressive leader" Hiram Johnson's campaign promise. By 1920, about a dozen states had successfully enactment such provisions. North Dakota (also under "progressive" rule at the time) was the first state to successfully recall a statewide official, in 1921.
The state legislatures would have paid closer attention to the performance of their Senators than the general public, because the public is distracted by their daily lives, and the Senators' behavior reflected on those in the legislature who voted for him.
A legislature that reappointed a corrupt Senator would not last long in their own seats when going back to their own neighbors for reelection.
Or so seems the argument.
-PJ
Anyone who seriously believes that you’d have CONSERVATIVES as a result of those GOP legislatures is misinformed. In Texas alone, they can’t get rid of a left-wing RINO House Speaker who maintains power via a coalition of Democrats and weak-kneed RINO pantywaists. Here in TN, despite a similar 2/3rds+ GOP majority, we also have a RINO House Speaker and have yet to elect a Conservative to the post.
You’d have similar “coalitions” electing left-wing, treasury-looting cretins and reprobates to the Senate just like these Speakers.
The 16th and 17th amendments were a gift to us from Theodore Roosevelt (and a continuation of his wishes through Taft), not Woodrow Wilson.
...and don’t forget the Federal Reserve, all products of the worst year in American history, 1913.
Thank you for the correct info. Many people/conservatives don’t realize how Progressive TR was.
We reflexively call the government “federal,” when it hasn’t been so since 1913. It is very close to the National government idea that was roundly defeated at the Philadelphia convention.
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.