-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 122 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Farrell’s Fallacies
May 9, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Turning on Obama
May 7, 2013 | 228 comments
The Nation's Pulse
Civics Lessons 2010
With special thanks to Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck for one of those brief shining moments.
When Colorado Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck briefly (and temporarily) suggested support for allowing state legislatures rather than the public to select U.S. senators, he stuck his well-known bovine digestive refuse-covered boots into the messy civics lesson that is the 2010 election.
For the first time during my 25 years of following politics, people who have the poor taste to bring up (in public!) the Founders, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, natural rights, and basic precepts of good government are no longer automatically judged to be wacko fringe extremists and likely members of “militias,” nor automatically tagged with the perennial establishment insult of “libertarian” — being called which has always been my own version of Br’er Rabbit being thrown into the briar patch.
The American public, with minds largely uncluttered — just how the left wants you — by a basic education in what used to be called “civics” (then “social studies,” and now “comparative Native American basket weaving philosophies — see footnote on page 273 for information on George Washington”), is learning the importance of fundamental American precepts the hard way: by living through government of, by, and for people who dislike, distrust, and completely misunderstand those precepts.
The day after Mr. Buck expressed his position on legislatures selecting senators, he retracted that position and has restated his current position — leaving the election of senators in the hands of the public — multiple times since. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (“DSCC”) nevertheless ran an ad calling Buck’s idea “radically different,” saying Buck wants to “rewrite the Constitution” and “end our right to vote.”
The message of the DSCC is that Ken Buck, a mainstream conservative Republican, is “extreme.” But the presumption of their message is that Americans are too ignorant of our own history to know that Ken Buck’s original suggestion represented little more than returning to the system of senatorial selection preferred by our Founders and which was in place for the majority of our republic’s history.
In particular, the United States Constitution in its original form said in Section 3, Clause 1 that “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof…” It was not until the 17th Amendment, passed by Congress in 1912 and ratified in 1913, that “chosen by the Legislature” was changed to “elected by the people.”
The DSCC’s ad is doubly dishonest: It says that Buck holds a position which they know he doesn’t hold, and they portray the position as radical even though it represents the system which was in place for 55% of the time since our Constitution was adopted. Unfortunately, the DSCC is rightly betting that few who see the ad will know this history (or that Buck doesn’t support the repeal of the 17th Amendment.)
What people should — but mostly won’t — learn from the DSCC’s ad is nothing about Ken Buck and a lot about the impact of the 17th Amendment. It’s not as if the small handful of (Republican) candidates for federal office who have suggested its repeal will be able to get more than a 5 second discussion on the issue from John Boehner. (OK, 5 seconds is an exaggeration since Boehner’s likely response of “What planet are you from?” can be scornfully delivered in two seconds flat. I timed it myself.) But even the mention of the idea seems to scare the DSCC — as it should, more than it should scare any other group on the planet.
The 17th Amendment is a direct attack on federalism and one of the greatest transfers of power from the states to the federal government, and particularly to Democrat senators, in our nation’s history. In a moment of remarkable candor, a U.S. government website states directly that the change was pushed by “Progressive reformers.” It’s no wonder; they knew exactly what they were doing.
In an important paper on “The History of the Seventeenth Amendment and its Implications for Current Reform Proposals,” George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki makes some key points:
• The Senate was intended “to provide an anti-democratic role under the Constitution, an American version of the English House of Lords designed to check the democratic excesses of the House of Representatives…”
• “Appointment of Senators by state legislatures gave the states a constituent role in the national government and a means to protect themselves from laws emanating from Washington designed to subvert state sovereignty and independence.”
• Following the passage of the 17th Amendment, “the 1920s showed for the first time federal intervention in traditional state functions, and the first use of federal grants to the states — along with accompanying federal control. Moreover, the state governments have more and more been downgraded from independent policy-making bodies to mere instrumentalities of the federal government… Indeed, it is inconceivable that a Senator during the pre-Seventeenth Amendment era would vote for an ‘unfunded federal mandate,’ thereby requiring state legislatures to raise taxes and spend money on projects they did not devise and for which they receive no political benefit.”
(You can hear a Cato Institute podcast on the topic with Todd Zywicki here.)
Even Alexander Hamilton, the leading champion among the Founders of a powerful central government, said (in Federalist 59) that while there is risk to the central government from a system in which state legislatures choose senators, a system which had direct election of senators “would doubtless have been interpreted into an entire dereliction of the federal principle; and would certainly have deprived the State governments of that absolute safeguard which they will enjoy under this provision.”
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (38) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/07/civics-lessons-2010
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Average Infidel| 9.7.10 @ 6:42AM
and what a sad individual this is without the conviction to do what is not only the lawful thing to do but, moral. But, noooo we can't have the little people knowing the truth now can we? As is the case for many demonrat party members, just backslides it way back to statements like, "what I really meant was" all bullshale. It is time for a real discussion on the real Constitution. I guess with the marxocrats sucking all the wind from the public discourse we will have to fight and claw our way back to the original intent of our founding document. Its a good start when one even mentions it. But, of course the marxocrats will have nothing of it. So if they insist we submit to their illegal items, we must just ignore them to their peril, yes their peril, because one day someone is going to leave a calling card for the communist/marxist/progressive traitors. I will be shortly behind them with one of my own. Bank on that mr. pretender. Democrat=scum.
Louis Jenkins| 9.7.10 @ 8:14AM
When the Germans tell us that America has become to European we'd better start listening.
Walking Horse| 9.7.10 @ 9:30AM
Here's another characterization consistent with Hamilton's assessment: today foreign nations are represented in Washington D.C. through their various consulates, even down to tiny principalities; just who represents the States in Washington D.C.? There is no such representation.
The passage of the 17th Amendment was a major nail in the coffin of Federalism and limited government.
Lois C| 9.7.10 @ 9:49AM
As hard as it may be, we must start serious discussion on repeal of the 17th Amendment in order to seriously put this country on the road to a meaningful recovery. Those that don't know that this was the original intention of the founders need to do three things, first re-learn their history, second demand to know why they did not learn this critical information and third take steps to discover what else they don't know.
Repeal of this amendment will be a beginning of the end of special interests being able to influence public policy and will stem the tide of unfunded mandates forced upon the states by the federal government. The founders framed the Congress carefully and deliberately, we need to restore that framework as quickly as possible.
Sam| 9.7.10 @ 8:51PM
Are you people serious? You actually want Senate elections in the hands of state legislatures? That is the worst kind of elitism and it makes me sick. I shudder to think what would happen here in CA. Right now, there's a chance we get Fiorina elected. In your world, I'd be stuck with not just Dem Senators, but super leftist Dem senators FOREVER. Keep your stupid ideas to yourselves!
Mike Rogers| 9.8.10 @ 12:13AM
Sam, That is exactly the kind of argument that Progressives used to bamboozle the country into supporting the 17th! I know your intentions are good, but please think for a moment about the big picture, instead of one Senate race.
The progressives argued that corrupt state legislatures could not be trusted with teh selection of senators.
The state legislatures may be corrupt politicians, but they are our corrupt politicians - they are close to the people, and we can replace them. It is much, much harder for outside interests to purchase an entire legislature (or even 51%) than for those interests to purchase one senator. On a national scale, it is nearly impossible for even George Soros to purchase 50 legislatures every 2 years. It is , however, ridiculously easy to purchase a sufficient portion of 33 senate seats every two years to maintain enough DemoRinos in power to do your bidding. This is BAD!
Your problem in CA (and currently my problem in NH) is a stupid leftist big spending legislature. If We the People do not replace the big spending legislatures, our states will suffer Greek Tragedies, and implode.
If you had a business-friendly legislature, it might well select Carly Fiorina anyway, whereas, as you correctly point out, the current legislature would have every possible motive to send a sympathetic porker to DC to help bail them out.
Therefore, work as if your life depended on it (and it might) to replace your legislature - if we turn enough of them, we can overturn the 17th!
Now, while I think the current system is wrong, I am doing my patriotic bit to exploit it, and I am helping Jim DeMint and related organizations purchase the best (most conservative) senators that money can buy, across the USA :)
I can see November from my house!
Samuel Brier| 9.8.10 @ 1:24AM
Mike,
I understand your argument, but CA politics aren't simply about 'voting out' state legislators. The real power in my state is held by the public employee unions- the Prison Guards Union, the police unions, the teachers unions, and the Nurses union.
We will never be able to 'vote out' a huge majority of our legislature, but we have been known to elect moderate-conservatives in large, one-candidate races. Gov. Pete Wilson was one. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was another. The Senate races is another opportunity to focus on one candidate. The unions have less influence in these races because there is so much attention being devoted and the become just one of many voices and opinions that surface.
I understand why you want to restore these states rights, but as someone who currently holds more power under the current system to prevent my state from going completely under, I will not give up this power and I don't think most Americans will either.
Sam| 9.8.10 @ 1:26AM
that post above is me. The computer accidentally published my full name.
Al Adab| 9.7.10 @ 11:21AM
Compare the Giants of those days to the Senators of today. When the states could direct the actions of the Senators, government did its Constitutional job. Since direct election, the pork barrell types predominate and we see the results. Who were the last giants? Dirksen, Goldwater, Scoop Jackson perhaps? Anyone since rise to the level of say Henry Clay or Daniel Webster?
John DuBose| 9.7.10 @ 1:02PM
State legislatures are elected by the people.
If the people see their legislators installing a bad senator, they will take indirect action and get new legislators. It may be a bit sloppy. But it is all OK.
RCV| 9.7.10 @ 3:05PM
The logic escapes me. If people see a bad senator, they can just not reelect him. The quality of people I see in my state legislature does not convince me they'd be better at choosing senators than I would.
Al Adab| 9.7.10 @ 3:11PM
Like AZ voters just did with McCain?
RCV| 9.7.10 @ 7:23PM
That's what happens when people are self-governing. THEY get to choose.
Mike Rogers| 9.8.10 @ 12:20AM
RCV, you, like Sam above, are missing the point of the article, and the point our founders made when they set up the system.
Progressives set up a con trick for 'you the sheeple', whereby you THINK you are choosing your own senators, whereas, with only 33 senate races every 2 years, and maybe a dozen of them critical, THEY get to choose your senators,a nd purchase their re-election 'during good behavior' (EG toeing the Progressive line).
If 'We the People' choose our state legislatures wisely, so that they are frugal and sensible, then we will be able to trust the legislature to select senators who will represents the interests of the state and resist Federal encroachment.
(Doing Beck impersssion - I HATE Woodrow Wilson!)
GavInTucson| 9.8.10 @ 12:54AM
I think you missed the original point. The passage of the 17th Amendment basically negated the primary purpose of the Senate, which was to protect States' rights. Your individual 'voice' to the government was in the House of Representatives. The 'voice' of State governments was in their choice of U.S. Senators. It wasn't your job to elect Senators, as your State had rights, too. See how that works? You got a voice, and your State got a voice. It's called Federalism.
I suppose you also believe that it's your "job" to elect the President. Well, guess what, it isn't... the electors do that (your state legislators). But don't take my word for it, read the Constitution.
Here's another piece of trivia for you (not that it's trivial)... during the first 7 presidential elections, the popular vote wasn't even tabulated. It was unnecessary, as the people don't elect the President. Even today, the popular vote is nothing more than polling data, as the electors choose the president, and have never been required by the law or the Constitution to take into consideration what the "masses" want.
It was another check and balance put in place by the Founders who, quite rightly, understood how a direct-democracy (as opposed to a Republic) would eventually destroy itself.
fwb| 9.7.10 @ 1:23PM
Point:
The 17th was not ratified properly. The main Constitution requires that no state be denied suffrage in the senate by any amendment. In order for the 17th to pass constitutional muster, it must receive 100% of the votes, NOT the more general 75%. Utah voted against the 17th and for that reason, the 17th could not be ratified, except that the government lied and ratified based on the old 3/4ths reasoning.
The reasoning behind the original system was to give the States their authority in the federal government. The people already had their house.
The 17th was another nail in the coffin of States' "rights".
RCV| 9.7.10 @ 3:11PM
What Article V provides is that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." There is nothing in the 17th Amendment that deprives any state of its "equal suffarage" in the Senate. The language clearly addresses giving one state less representation in the Senate than another state. The 17th does not do so, but treats all states equally.
Mike Rogers| 9.8.10 @ 12:25AM
BUT, it does take away their representation, and create a second congress, instead. The senators are no longer tied to the state government, can cand and do vote for garbage with is against the interests of their own states 'for the greater good', without having to answer to the state lawmakers.
I am not sure that fwb's claim will stand up, but the states have most definitely been deprived of their equal suffrage in the senate, unless you mean equal LACK of representation!
Mike Rogers| 9.8.10 @ 12:27AM
Corrected version:
BUT, it does take away their representation, and create a second congress, instead. The senators are no longer tied to the state government, and can and do vote for garbage which is against the interests of their own states 'for the greater good', without having to answer to the state lawmakers.
I am not sure that fwb's claim will stand up, but the states have most definitely been deprived of their equal suffrage in the senate, unless you mean equal LACK of representation!
Solo| 9.7.10 @ 1:23PM
Well done! This is a subject near and dear to my heart.
The single most important reform that can be imagined in our current state is a repeal of the 17th Amendment!
We could literally roll back the pernicious influence of Progressive policy in one fell swoop!
And ....the sweetest part is (and the part that scares progressives the most) is that we don't need the Congress in order to do it!
A call for a Constitutional Convention by the states is all that is needed. This could be easier to do than one might think.
The genius of the Constitution is that it takes advantage of the human lust for power in order to balance (and thus mitigate) that power.
A repeal of the 17th would lend tremendous power to State Legislatures to shape both national as well as local policy--something that they simply can't resist.
At the same time, it would make Senators accountable to their respective states interests and, in so doing, remove the influence of national and international special interests as well as an increasingly centralized power within the Federal Government.
Let's face it, the biggest problem with the Senate is that it's members have become National candidates, subject to the whims and desires of national interests lest they be denied coveted campaign contributions.
Instead of appealing to national interests within their respective campaigns, they would be reduced to lobbying State legislators in order to gain favor (more power for the respective State Legislators) who would then be accountable to the state electorate.
It's a very tidy and efficient means to check power and concentrate it where it belongs (in most cases): Within the states.
Nunya| 9.7.10 @ 6:07PM
While I agree with your sentiment, I must confess that a Constitutional Convention scares the daylights out of me. We could end up with a document that has no resemblence to what I believe was divinely inspired. I'd hate to think of the potential changes that could be wrought, even though I know it would have to be ratified by the states. The problem is, how many states do you think would ratify the removal of the 2nd Amendment? How many would ratify a "modification" of the 1st or 5th Amendments? Since the 9th and 10th Amendments are pretty much ignored anyway, what about getting rid of them?
It's a scary thought...
Joe Oliva| 9.7.10 @ 1:33PM
The overriding harm done by the 17th was to transfer power from the individual states to the two corrupt parties. Before that, a Senator was obligated to serve his own state or lose his job. The House reps served the people locally. The states were represented, the people locally were represented, and in theory, the President represented us all in our face to the world. That was the intent of separation of powers.
Once direct election of Senators came along, a candidate no longer needed those legislators. Now the need was for the party. In order to mount a statewide campaign, a candidate needed an organization and lots of money, so their allegiance switched from the State to the Party, and what we now have are two corrupt major parties that dominate and cooperate to keep, out independentrsa and third parties. All members serve the party leadership. Today, many if not most folks think separation of powers means power divided betweent the Democrats and the Republicans. Even talking heads on tv promote this garbage.
The role of the President also changed because the party in power drove an agenda that he was for the most part, always going to support. Never mind the needs of the country. The party came first. The progressive era was so destructive of freedom that it is almost unbelievable how many people still think the nanny state is great. And of course, they have no idea how the 17th added to this destruction. I doubt if any of our esteemed senators would ever support overturning this monstrosity. The people certainly are unaware of how this all happened as the progressives took over education, believing Marx's point about controlling the minds of the young to change the the future.
It wil;l be a long road ahead to see if we can get rid of these corrupt elites, and that is the major potential downside of having to trust the GOP to restore Constitutional Self Government. Is there really a future for freedom with either party?
I guess our kids will find out in about 50 years.
Mike Rogers| 9.8.10 @ 12:35AM
First class comment, Joe.
I would only add that we can work our hearts out trying to send 'angels' to DC to govern us, in the hopes that they will limit their own power - that will take a lot of Jim Demints, Ken Bucks, and, yes Ron & Rand Pauls. What we can also do is elect the very best and strongest state governments to invoke the 9th and 10th on our behalf.
The people in DC MIGHT put themselves on a diet, but the states can lay siege and starve the beast!
JP| 9.7.10 @ 3:45PM
Buck is of course correct. The 17th Amendment by and large has been a disaster for this nation. Senators no longer represent thier states, and by and large only answer to lobbiests, other Senators, or the Beltway intelligentsia. It is rare for an incumbent Senator to lose; and it is becoming not that unusual for a Senator to serve 3 or more terms. Senator Lugar is on his 5th term. Most Senators refuse to meet with grass root people from thier own state party apparatus. Most over time believe it is thier own duty to ignore thier state's constituencies; but, they are more than willing to accept money. And the money comes from lobbiest who have much invested in a growing federal bureaucracy. And the larger the buracucracy the more power Senators accumulate.
By rescinding the 17th Amendment, all Senators would have to pay attention to thier state's political parties. Thier longevity would be based upon thier local party's electoral successes, and not name or brand recognition. Without the 17th Amendment it is hard to imagine even the late Senators Bryd or Kennedy lasting as long as they did.
batrascaille| 9.7.10 @ 4:28PM
Perhaps I have simply missed something, but I fail to see why the parties or special interests would not simply adjust their focus and start lobbying the state legislators instead of the masses.
Wouldn't having fewer people to lobby/bribe for a vote (which probably already happens in legislatures all over, anyway) make it easier for the parties or special interests?
Joe Oliva| 9.7.10 @ 4:53PM
Not really batrascaille because the state legislators and governors would not readily concede power to the feds. So, to begin with, we have cut down the power of the federal govt. and returned it to the states.
More to the point of your question, if the state legislators and governor give in to lobbyists and special interests, we can more easily vote them out. In fact, if the power were to reside in the states as the founders envisioned, we would not be so focused on national elections but rather on state elections.
With our (we the people) focusing on the state government, it is less likely if not impossible that the states would enact disastrous policies like the federal govt. does today as with ObamaCare. Senators loyal to their state and not their party would never have voted for this outrageous monstrosity.
JP| 9.7.10 @ 8:00PM
You must remember it is much easier and less expensive to house one large lobbying firm on K-Street than to fund and house 50 offices in the other state capital. And one never knows at the state level how the politcal winds will blow. One firm can sink $20 million in one Senator only to see thier investment wither on the vines as said Senator pisses off the local PTAs, minorities, farmers, or construction workers. Without the 17th Amdendment, K-Street would never wield the power that they do. How many govenors, and state legislators have gone down because the price of corn dropped 50%, real estate prices sky-rocketed, or some because of some mis-statement?
Like I said in othe posts, Planned Parenthood and the UAW would never be able to wield such power if they had to invest in large operations across all 50 states.
Ken in People's Republic of MD| 9.7.10 @ 3:55PM
I wonder, though, if the power to name senators was returned to the states, how much different would the Senate make up be?
In Maryland, for example, two counties and Baltimore City are overwhelmingly Democratic, while the rest of the state, particularly the Eastern Shore and for Western Maryland, are overwhelmingly conservative.
There is a chance that the people in these counties will elect, if not conservative congress people, then at least Repubicans. There is no chance the state legislature will send a conservative to Congress. However slim, the chance remains that Ben Cardin or Mikulski might get upset in a general election. If Thomas "Mike" Miller, the president of the Maryland senate, and Micheal Busch, speaker of the house had their way, Cardin and Mikulski would be named senators for life and no Republican would be elected to anything in this state.
As it is, former Governor Bob Ehrlich, a Republican and incumbent Gov Martin O'Malley, the Democrat who defeated Ehrlich four years ago, this year face a neck and neck battle for the manison in Annapolis. If Bob wins, we have another four years of Democratic gridlock to look forward to. Busch and Miller constantly go against the will of the people and it would be the same if they had any say in naming our senators. They probably wish they could name the governor.
Joe Oliva| 9.7.10 @ 4:57PM
At least we would be allowing individual ststes to chart their own course; 50 independent paths to prosperity rather than one huge behemoth stealing everything. Also, if you are conservative or liberal, you could move to the state that best suits your beliefs. As it is now, what is the point of moving, ObamaCare will get you no matter where you are?
Mike Rogers| 9.8.10 @ 12:42AM
Ken, you are making the same mistake as Sam in CA, and Joe's answer is excellent. If the local state government is spending you into oblivion, and public discourse cannot convince 51% that things must change, then move to a different "laboratory of democracy", and let the old state learn the hard way.
This is the thinking behind the Free State Project in NH - try to turn a modest sized population somewhat more libertarian/conservative by moving in like-minded people. C'mon up and help us kick our Dems out - you've got a better chance here :)
keyboard jockey | 9.7.10 @ 6:06PM
Mid Term Election Primer.
http://youhavetobethistalltogo.....-exam.html
TomB| 9.7.10 @ 7:34PM
The concept reminds me of an experiment run by some late-night comedy show once where they set up a petition drive to "End Women's Suffrage."
Yes, they got lots of signatures and most of them were women.
Tim*| 9.7.10 @ 9:48PM
The 17 th amendment usurped the power and influence of sovereign state legislatures in federal matters.
The Founders deliberately placed this sovereign power of state legislatures into The Constitution .
Rich Rostrom| 9.8.10 @ 3:14AM
All this rhetoric about federalism overlooks the main reason direct election of Senators was adopted: legislatures frequently failed to elect a Senator, leaving a seat vacant for months or years.
Delaware was perhaps the worst offender, leaving a seat vacant for nearly four years (1899-1903) and in 1901-1903 leaving both seats vacant.
The 17th Amendment put an end to such lallygagging.
Ross Kaminsky | 9.8.10 @ 11:08AM
Rich,
One must wonder whether Delaware was actually doing the country a big favor. One fewer Senator sounds like...a good start.