The original construction of the US Senate was a foundation of republican government. What was the recourse in the event of its corruption?
Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Both of these amendments could have been invoked to RECALL a corrupt sitting US Senator via a vote of the state legislature or a popular recall vote. But recalls were hampered and opposed by the direct wording in the US Constitution that US Senators were elected for six years and no means of removal was provided (as in the case of Senator Frank Church who was recalled but had a federal judge set aside his recall ruling that recalls of US Senators were unconstitutional).
A popular vote of a US Senator? Why? Why then need a Senate? Is a popular elected US Senator some sort of ‘Uber Representative’ of the People? Is the Senate some sort of elevated People’s House standing next to the House of Representatives?
The Founders knew that a pure democracy was a recipe for doom. They had the knowledge and teachings of the downfalls of the Greco-Roman civilizations. But they also knew from the Constitutional Convention that there were voices calling for a popular vote of the US Senate. Those voices were understandably ignored as the near-unanimous consensus was to form a republic, not a democracy.
The members of the Constitutional Convention voted on two indirect constructs to form a republic: a Senate appointed by states and the Electoral College. The 17th Amendment abolished the first construct and the second is at risk by a consortium of organized urban interests. An amendment to overturn the Electoral college would be the downfall of the America Republic, the ensuing democracy would with certainty lead to mob-ruled governance, a totalitarian state. New York, Chicago, Los Angeles would be the electors of the US President.
Back to the 17th, the question is why even have a US Senate, to begin with? What purpose does it serve under the 17th Amendment? It is no longer bound to represent the interests of state governments, what good does it therefore add? Its small numbers (100) merely make it an easier target for takeover by controlling interests.
To control the US Government requires only control of 51 and of those 51, most can be controlled through monetary means by controlling only a handful who are set up as gatekeepers of campaign funds. The 17th Amendment accomplished nothing as to stopping schemes from buying a controlling interest in the US Senate. The only effective means of stopping corruption in the US Senate is through a combination of terms limits and recall.
Here’s the amendment that should have been the 17th, but today can be the 28th:
************************************************
AMENDMENT XXVIII (’Federal-State Rebalancing’)
To restore the foundational structure of State Legislatures to Congress, the following amendment is proposed:
************************************************
Section 1. Senators in Congress shall be subject to recall by their respective state legislature or by voter referendum in their respective state.
Section 2. Term limits for Senators in Congress shall be set by a vote in their respective state legislatures but in no case shall be set less than twelve years nor more than eighteen years.
Section 3: The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
************************************************
Some have said that under such an amendment, Luthor Strange would have been appointed over Roy Moore, but such ignores the power of Recall. The power of Recall allows for judging the fruits, not the name. It matters not so much which name, Strange or Moore, is appointed. It matters what the ‘name’ does while in office under a specter of Recall.
In effect, the legislatures and the People need a means of FIRING their federally appointed officers, not just hiring them. The act of firing is based on a judgment of the ‘fruits’ of performance. Hiring can occur under a false representation, but firing is the remedy to a poor hiring choice, judged ‘poor’ by observing the fruits of performance.
The 17th Amendment allows a deceptive hiree to continue for six years and to act as a charlatan to fool the public by myriad means for another six years, and another, and another, for decades. And should one charlatan fail to be reelected, the nature of the office allows for moneyed interests to install another charlatan. Without Recall, state legislative involvement, and term limits, the 17th Amendment supports an efficient infrastructure for corruption.
Excellent points. The Constitution was amended several times to correct its shortcomings and errors. The 17th and 18th were errors, and the 18th was repealed. We MUST do the same with the 17th.
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