Interestingly there have been 16 amendments to the constitution since it was signed. 6 of those amendments happened between 1900-1933 (which is considered the progressive era). ((double interesting is even within that period they repealed one amendment with another; 18th and 21st.)) There are really two amendments in that period that i don't like, but i want to focus on the 17th. The 17th states,
AMENDMENT XVII
Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
I bolded the change in the constitution. before senators were elected by the state legislators and not by popular vote. The thought behind having the state legislators appointing the senator is that the senator would be more loyal to the state. The the thought behind the change was to stop corruption and give the power to the People. Now, normally i am for giving more power to the People, however my disdain towards the national government is stronger. What has happened, and really its true intent, was the senators became more loyal to the national government than to their state. example, chris dodd (d-ct) received far more money from his campaign from people outside his state than from people inside his state. If a state has a senator in the senate for a long time, like so many senators, the senator losses the touch with the People from his/her state. Second, you have people from other states that fly into a certain state (because of x y and z) and win the race but have very little loyalty to the People of the state.
what if we did go back to the state legislators appointing the senators (now congress would still be popular vote within their district)? Would this then pull the senate closer to the states and further away from washington? the argument that the old system caused corruption is over, since now we have many cases of corruption from this 'new' system. by having the senators closer to their states, would this then give power back to the People of each state?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The powers still in the hands of the people. If the Senator chooses to ignore the will of his state, see if he/she gets elected for a second term. I think it would be harder to have that check on the Senator if he/she was elected by the the legislators. Not to mention that you would get some pretty one sided selections if you've got a majority of one party in the legislature.
ReplyDeleteMaybe this is the wrong view, but i fell like the Senate's responsibilities are less focused on state interests and more so on national interests. The house is the...house...that deals with state affairs. And I know that the senate deals with state affairs but they are the upper house, they have a stronger hand in national affairs.
I agree with the comment, however I wish you had supported your argument with more examples.
ReplyDeleteAnd where, may i ask, are any of yours?
ReplyDeleteI think that the founding government was set up more as a federation than a one national government. And it has been through time that the government has shifted from the states to the national government. And that started early on. This amendment is one of those steps. Senators I think was set up more like a UN style, where they all got together sitting for their state, rather than serving the nation. If the senators are to have national interests than shouldn't all americans vote for each one? I would like to do more research on the subject. Good questions to ask would be how long did senators serve before and after the amendment? How did senators rise to serve their states before the amendment?
ReplyDeletesorry this one seems rush, but I will add more to it soon.
just found this blog, of course it will be one sided. I haven't read it, but it maybe a good place to kind of get an idea of one side of the argument.
ReplyDeleterepealthe17thamendment.blogspot.com
here is another, but it from the same side. doing a quick web search, i'm sure it will be mostly of people not liking the amendment.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nhinet.org/hoebeke.htm
I don't think that the Senators would have to be elected by all of the people if their focus is national. They are representing the state interests in national issues. that is just a theoretical comment. In practice, yes the government started with a federalist emphasis and has switched to a more national government emphasis. But i think that the changing shape of America over the last couple centuries has necessitated the change in emphasis.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with you on that, but i would have to say i have not liked the changing shape of america and its changing emphasis. It's growth and change has made it into something i don't even think the founding fathers could have ever imagined.
ReplyDeleteso in other words, the senate is now there too keep the president (who has always been national) in check with national matters. It grows quite close to the set up of the senate under rome. Has it become more of an act of republicanism than a real republic?