-
Tebowing and ‘Polarizing’
June 11, 2013 | 7 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I’ve previously made my case as to why I think trying to repeal the 17th Amendment is not a good use of constitutional conservatives’ time. Ramesh Ponnuru has also weighed in against the idea. I’d only add two points: 1.) While we don’t have anywhere near enough limited-government senators, I’d be willing to bet we have more than we’d have if state legislators were still choosing them; 2.) I think supporters of repeal are right about the problems the popular election of senators helped worsen or create, but wrong to think any of these problems would be solved by repealing the 17th Amendment now.
View all comments (14) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/11/12/the-trouble-with-repealing-the
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
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
Rogue Elephant| 11.12.10 @ 1:09PM
Repealing the 17th Amendment will do little to restore federalism. That would be a pointless and ill-conceived political fight that will undermine the objective - restoring federalism.
Kyle| 11.12.10 @ 2:22PM
They should be limited to 4 year terms. There is no reason why they should get to sit around safely for 6 years, going against their constituents. These Senators have become tyrants and bribe takers. Why should a Senator get a 6 year term? Is it because they are supposed to be the "cooling saucer". We haven't seen much of that the past 2 years, but I heard that phrase over and over, when Bush was in office.
Eric Damon| 11.12.10 @ 7:08PM
The reason for the 6 year term is so that we are not turning over the Senate every 4 years during a presidential election. That would be a huge mess, don't you think? If Senators were being elected every 4 years, nothing would ever get accomplished because they would always be running for reelection.
Ed in North Texas| 11.13.10 @ 8:59AM
Kyle wrote: "There is no reason why they should get to sit around safely for 6 years, going against their constituents."
Simple reason - the Founders set the term in the Constitution. Not that it couldn't be changed but, as we all know, amending the Constitution isn't the easiest thing to do.
JP| 11.12.10 @ 3:18PM
While I agree that it would be more than foolish for Conservatives to waste whatever political capital on repeal, I think most of the opponents miss the point.
The Senate has become more than dysfunctional. Individual Senators now pay hardly any attention to their voters who put in thier seats. They are totally beholden to K-Street. Couple in the fact that most state political machines are loathe to replace senate incumbents, and we have the mess we have today.
By allowing state legislatures to appoint senators, the Senate will at least relfect state interests and not just the interests of K-Street and well funded political advocacy groups. The way things stand now, lobbiests just pour money into the senator's campaign coffers. If the 17 Amendment was repealed, it would be very impractical for say SEIU, GE, or AARP to pour money into the coffers of thousands of state lawmakers. And with the senator's career dependent upon legislators from his own state, he would have to focus much of his time on pleasing his own state constituents. And if the political trends in a state are reversed, then that reversal would be reflected in the appointment of a new senator. Incumbency would not be guarenteed (there are exceptions -especially in one party states like California and Texas).
Today, we have senators who routinely vote against the interests of thier home states (just look at the Dems in the Far West states who routinely pass laws that are inimical to thier farmers, ranchers, miners, and energy providers). Well funded enviormentalists now fight thier battles in the Beltway without giving state interests any concern. That kind of anti-federalist actions would go away with repeal. They would have to take thier fights to 50 state houses if they want change.
The 17th Amendment deserves repeal. The question is simply when.
RJ| 11.12.10 @ 3:38PM
While repeal of the 17th Amendment is not in the cards, I agree that its passage was a mistake. Nonetheless, we need to remember that by 1912, 29 of the 48 states had already established popular elections to select their US Senators, so the system of electing Senators had already been substantially changed by the states without the amendment.
In the early days of the Republic, Senators probably did have an interest in limiting the reach of the federal government. In today's environment, I suspect Senators chosen by state legislatures would probably end up being glorified lobbyists for state aid.
One major reform I would like to see the conservatives push is sun-set laws on the duration of government programs and agencies. Today, programs and agencies are continue without question; the only issue being is how much they grow. A sun-set law would require Congress to rejustify the program and all of its parts could be reviewed when up for renewal. For example, if the IRS code was wiped away, I don't think Congress could re-enact the same code. Sun-set laws would open the door for periodic review of existing legislation and provide an opportunity to get rid of obsolete, wasteful and unnecessary programs.
danny| 11.12.10 @ 9:27PM
eric, i submit that with what they have accomplished it might not be a bad idea keeping them occupied with trying to get re-elected all the time. the less time they spend in washington, the less damage they can do.
toadold| 11.12.10 @ 10:31PM
Yes it would be impossible to get the electorate to turn against the establishment in the Senate, to throw a methaphorical bomb into thier comfortable gig.......Uh isn't that one of the main objectives of the Tea Party movement. If the RINO's don't listen wouldn't the TP guys be more than happy to give them the 17th up the Yazoo?
NVA Patriot| 11.13.10 @ 12:17AM
Repeal teh 16th and 17th amendments. They are progressive 'birds of a feather.' Prior to the 17th amendment passage numerous states were un able to send a full complment of Senators to Washington because of individual state partisan politics. The result was a disfunctional senate that 'couldn't get things done.' Given what progressive oriented congresses have done in teh last 100yrs, how is that bad? Repeal teh 16th because it funds the monstrosity that impoverishes us and enriches Washington. If the feds have no money and a disfunctional senate, then the onlything the nation will be able to do is fight wars that threaten our bodrs and administer trade proposals - kind-of like the founders planned it....
NeilBJ| 11.13.10 @ 10:01AM
I have gone back and forth on the issue of repealing the 17th amendment. In principle, I like the idea that the House of Representatives represents the interests of the people and the Senate represents the interestes of the states.
However, I am finding it difficult to predict how Senators appointed by state legislatures would work in practice. I have wondered if a "mixed" approach would work: Senators elected by the people with recall power vested in the state legislatures.
Senators would then be on notice that their first loyalty lies with the interests of their state, and the people would still be part of the electoral process. This leaves open the question of the status of a recalled Senator. Should he or she be eligible to be elected in the next election for same Senate slot?
In electoral politics there is no perfect solution.
Madison Hamilton| 11.17.10 @ 10:06AM
If you don't understand the 17th's weakening of bicameralism and federalism, than you don't understand the issue. The Constitution prevented accumulation of power at any one level or by a single entity by pitting competing constituencies against one another, particularly in the form of the electoral college and the bicameral legislature. The original Senate design simultaneously injected competing constituencies in the form of the states vs the people, small vs. large states, the elites vs. the masses, different districting strategies, and different personalities. By giving the states a direct say, it also "hard wired" federalism so the national government could not take or wield power without participation and consent of the states. Federalism is the giving of limited power to a higher government by lower divisions, not the other way around, which is a unitary government.
By destroying the states' direct participation in the formation and administration of the national government, it essentially eliminated bicameralism by creating two houses with virtually identical constituencies. Laws are passed that please moneyed special interests, political parties, and the electorate with its hand out.
It disabled "hard" federalism by eliminating state legislature representation, so the national government has no effective checks on its userpation of power from the states other than the selective interpretation of the 9th and 10th Amendments by an increasingly statist judiciary. This increasingly national perspective of the judiciary is another consequence of the 17th, since a nationally biased Senate trends to appoint those of similar ilk. These have enabled Congressional expansion and overreach. The 17th was the only amendment that significantly altered the structure of our government and the distribution of power. Repeal is no magic bullet, but it's the closest thing. Don't take my word for it--read Federalist 9, 10, 39, 62, and 63 for starters.
Madison Hamilton| 11.17.10 @ 10:14AM
And here's a way to do it:
Since there is no actual precedent for the Article V amendment method and procedures are either vague, based on pre-Constitutional writings, or nonexistent, the legislatures should seize the initiative and dictate as many pertinent details of the Convention as possible. To reduce scope, focus the mission, minimize uncertainty, and reduce Congressional muddling of a proposed Convention, it is critical that resolutions from state legislatures express the same sentiments and use essentially the same language. The Convention’s purpose should be to repeal and replace the 17th Amendment, and nothing else. Ideally, the purpose, location, method of selecting delegates, and amendment language should be dictated by the legislatures in their petition and leave little leeway for Congress or others to misinterpret or hijack the Convention’s mission. To this end, the following should be included in each state legislature’s petition:
• Congress shall convene a Constitutional Convention to repeal the 17th Amendment and amend the Constitution with procedures for appointing Senators.
• Three delegates per state shall be elected by the respective state legislature. Equality of representation reflects the Senate’s nature and the similar Convention purpose; a small, odd number will result in a manageable Convention and prevent stalemates within each state’s delegations.
• No sitting Congressmen or national government employees may be elected delegates.
• Delegates from 2/3 of the states must be present for the Convention to act upon the 17th Amendment, although if a majority of states are represented, delegates may conduct administrative business such as rules of order or electing Convention leadership.
• Delegates shall be paid from U. S. Treasury funds at a daily rate equal to that of a U. S. Senator, not to exceed four months’ total pay.
• The Convention shall be convened in Wichita, Kansas, symbolic as the center of the contiguous United States and geographically removed from Congressional influence (or a secluded island somewhere!).
• The method of ratification must be by 3/4 of state legislatures, because the legislatures are the most obvious, immediate beneficiaries of the proposed amendment and those most likely to approve it in a form that benefits them.
Proposed Amendment Text
The proposed amendment should read as follows:
• The Seventeenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is hereby repealed.
• Senate candidates shall be citizens of the United States and at least 35 years old and residents of the respective state.
• Senate candidates may be nominated by any legislator from the respective state.
• Two Senators from each state shall be elected by simple majority vote of the joint legislature of the respective state.
• If the state legislature fails to reach majority for any Senate position within 60 days of either the designated election date or a vacancy, the Governor of that state shall appoint a Senator to fill the position for the full length of the remaining term.
• No Senator may serve more than two consecutive Senate terms.
• Senators may be recalled for any reason by 3/4 majority votes of the joint legislature of the respective state.
• Elections shall be conducted by secret ballot.
• Election dates and Senatorial rotations shall be maintained in concurrence with current practice.
This amendment shall take effect immediately upon ratification by 3/4 of state legislatures of the United States.
ROBERT BYERLY| 9.16.11 @ 10:26AM
You are quite wrong about repealing the 17th Amendment. Putting the "house" in order must start by repeal of everything that was not put there by the framers, or those that used the framers' words and the Constitution as a guide. The 16th and 17th Amendments were not in a Constitutional spirit, they were part of a power grab by a precious few who stood to profit. The 23rd and 26th Amendments are questionable as to which limited special interest stands to profit as well. The era of shrugging your shoulders and accepting the status quo as politically expedient is over. The time to know what you stand for and make it known has arrived. It is now closer to 1775 than 1975 in spirit and action.