LJWorld.com weblogs The Free Market
Posted
by Liberty_one
May 5, 2010 at 9:54 a.m.
Repeal the 17th Amendment
The 17th Amendment changes how US Senators are elected. Prior to 1913, Senators were selected by state legislatures, but now they are elected by popular vote. There were several reasons for the change, one being that occasionally different houses in state legislatures could not agree on who to send, and thus senate seats would be vacant, sometimes for several years. Also, the idea was to be closer to democracy by holding direct elections.
However, the purpose of the Senate as originally envisioned was to represent the several states' interests in the Federal Government. The House of Representatives was there to represent the people. The 17th Amendment basically makes the Senate a "Super House." The result has been that the Senate no longer acts to promote federalism since the Senators are not beholden to the state legislatures for their office. Thus the burden of protecting state's rights and state interests has fallen to the Supreme Court instead. Hence instead of increasing democracy, it has decreased since the Supreme Court has taken a larger role in restricting federal power, and that branch of government is not democratically elected at all.
In addition, the founders did not imagine that the Constitution would be simply a paper wall holding back federal power. The Senate was envisioned to be a check on that federal power since Senators would be chosen by the state legislatures to represent state interests. This helped to ensure that when there was a conflict over whether the Federal government or the various state governments should carry out some policy, if the states could do it just as well as the Federal government, they would.
These days the Senate has become very politicized and now we have ideological battles over things like Supreme Court nominations where we should not. Also it has become very difficult for states to challenge federal power. The states can sue the federal government in federal courts, but one can clearly see the problem with that. The only other thing the states can do is threaten nullification or even secession, hardly a peaceful method as this will lead to a direct confrontation between state and federal power.
The founders knew what they were doing in setting up a government of checks and balances, and removing this vital one has resulted in the present imbalance we see between state and federal power.
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- National group seeks repeal of 'Stand Your Ground' law in Kansas May 27, 2012 · 166 comments
- Kansas tax act most regressive in nation May 27, 2012 · 277 comments
- U.S. military sees new appreciation May 28, 2012 · 47 comments
- Sound Off: How much does the city’s transit system collect in fares compared with how much it costs May 27, 2012 · 137 comments
- Tax gamble May 26, 2012 · 95 comments
- Brownback tells federal judicial panel to toss legislative redistricting maps May 29, 2012 · 7 comments
- God, marriage May 25, 2012 · 200 comments
- On the street: How did you spend your Memorial Day? May 28, 2012 · 37 comments
- Remove politics, and redistricting map falls in line May 27, 2012 · 52 comments
- Blog: Iranian Nuclear Energy: Will It Destroy Lives Or Save Them? May 29, 2012 · 6 comments
- Kansas tax act most regressive in nation May 27, 2012
- Thread of pain ran through Jackson’s career June 28, 2009
- Hilltop executive director Pat Pisani stepping down May 28, 2012
- Friends mourn Lynn Bretz, former voice of KU May 28, 2012
- Town Talk: UPDATE: Frank Male files for county commission; keep an ear open for local sales tax talk; city hires new city engineer; wholesale water district buys land near Kaw; weekly land transfers May 29, 2012
- How to help: Guides needed for Lamplight Tour of Black Jack Battlefield and Nature Park May 27, 2012
- Library kicks off reading program May 27, 2012
- City, county mull upgrade to emergency radio system May 28, 2012
- Experts: Remedial college classes need fixing May 28, 2012
- Book helps family heal after tragedy May 28, 2012
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
For example, Supreme Court nominations should be purely about whether the person is qualified to sit as a justice, not their personal views on politics. You watch Senate confirmation hearings and it's all about political views, and not about their qualifications and experience on the bench.
In addition, this conflict between several states and the federal government over the health care bill could have largely been avoided had the Senate not been directly elected.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
During times of crisis the federal government, as most governments do, would ratchet up its power in order to deal with the crisis. Prior to 1913, however, power would be ratcheted back down to the pre-crisis levels. After 1913, the ratcheting up never stopped, as we've seen an almost continuous increase in the size, scope and cost of the Federal Government. I think this can be directly attributed to the 16th and 17th amendments.
Did_I_say_that (DIST) says…
Well written and to the point, Liberty_One. Many of the problems associated with government can be tied to this change. A Senator would be much easier to hold accountable if the state governments, which represent their local constituents, held his/her pink slip.
Another change, although not constitutional, that affected federal government in a negative way was when legislators became full-time Washingtonians. I have not found in history when that actually occurred; however, it gave Representatives and Senators way too much time to become corrupt. Is there any chance of Liberty_one providing more information on the government's move from part- to full-time legislators?
Horace (anonymous) says…
Repeal the 11th Amendment.
observing (anonymous) says…
I never thought of this. This is well-written and compelling.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Did_I--I know the 20th amendment moved up the date at which Congress would first convene for regular business, but I'm not sure if that's what you mean.
Did_I_say_that (DIST) replies…
I am familiar with the date change. But, what I mean is that the job itself, Senator or Representative, was at one time a "part-time" position. That is, Congress would meet for a few weeks or a month, then go back home. They spent very little time in DC and usually had a full-time career (farmer, lawyer, doctor, merchant, etc.) back home.
At some point the roles, and time spent, were expanded. Now, Representatives and Senators are full-time politicians. There is too much time to create new laws (job security), become corrupt, and run for re-election. When did the positions become "full-time" careers?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Another problem with popular elections versus legislative selections is that campaign money and special interests wield influence over senators, whereas if they were selected by the states and not required to fund expensive campaigns they would be insulated from the corrupting influence of money.
none2 (anonymous) says…
I really think this is a VERY interesting LTE even if I don't agree with it.
I don't really trust our state legislature to do something like this. Take a look at this year alone. They were more interested in covanent marriages, free marriage licenses for the poor, a possible tax on soda, and various petty little things. As to the budget which was so much more important, they waited to the very last part of the session to get serious about it. Those are the people you want to choose our federal senators? I know I don't want them makeing those decisions.
I found the following on wiki:
"Before the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, senators were elected by the individual state legislatures.[3] However, problems with repeated vacant seats due to the inability of a legislature to elect senators, intrastate political struggles, and even bribery and intimidation gradually led to a growing movement to amend the Constitution to allow for the direct election of senators."
So it sounds to me like there were plenty of problems before this change.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
"Those are the people you want to choose our federal senators?"
As opposed to people who are more interested in Dancing with the Stars? Yes.
As for the accusations of bribery and intimidation, it's nothing compared to the corruption that followed. How much corruption and bribery go on now that Senators have to raise huge war chests to finance massive advertising campaigns?