The 17th Amendment
by Mr. Ogre on Sep 29, 2010 at 20:28 Commentary, Political, tea party
So, which of you good readers know, without looking it up, the 17th amendment? No, don’t worry, I won’t expect everyone to know every amendment, I was just wondering. And so you won’t have to look it up, here it is:
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.
Yes, that’s the first part of it, but it’s the part I’d like to comment on today. And my comment?
That stinks.
I’m sure most people today don’t understand the process that made the election of Senators direct — but look at how it effects government today. The US Senate, primarily, passes laws that spend money (other people’s money). And in a large number of those cases, they direct states to spend money — not caring if the states actually have any money. And this gives the governments in the states the ability to say, “Gee, sorry working people, we HAVE to raise taxes to pay for this program we’re required to have.”
That could change if the Senators then had to head home and answer to the legislators who elected them. No, it wouldn’t be a perfect system, but it would be better than what we have now. Currently, US Senators are rich bodies who fill seats for the national parties and large special interest groups (businesses, unions, etc.). No Senator really gives a damn about anything that happens to people in their own state. This can be seen, obviously, if one cares to look. Take a look at Alaska, where everyone assumed that the political royalty would just stay elected (Murkowski). Then, when something happened and she didn’t win, suddenly the National Democrat Party was interested in the Senate election in Alaska. Not one person in the National Democrat Party cares about a thing in Alaska — but now that they perceive that they have a chance to get a seat from Alaska, they’re interested. And the Republican Party, after seeing their anointed lose, refuse to do anything about it (see: Republican Party doesn’t remove now ex-Republican Murkowski from any leadership positions). Again, they’re more interested in the warm body that they can claim as their own.
I wonder if enough Tea Party candidates win, if this amendment would have a chance of being removed.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: 17th amendment, Senate
I would not bet on them changing it unless an overwhelming number of TEA Party backed candidates win.
They all like it this way because they can fool enough of the morons who are allowed to vote to get reelected but the state legislature is much smaller.
I would like to see it go back to where Senators were responsible to the state and Representatives responsible to the people who put them there.
As it stands now we have two houses of Representatives…
The original intent of the senate was to represent states interests in the federal government. That was a compromise designed to ensure that all states would have equal status and representation. Further, revenue bills were limited to being started in the house of representatives to prevent the states from forcing federal taxes on the citizens without representation.
The only thing I wish the Founders had included was a means to recall a senator either by a state legislature vote (2/3 majority) or a popular vote of the people (50% +1). In that way, a senator who failed to represent his state properly could be fired and replaced outside of the normal 6 year period. Obviously, the requirements to perform a recall would be quite steep, not unlike an impeachment proceeding against the president.
John C, I like the way you think- yes, these Senators are supposed to represent the States’ interests, AND THAT IS ALL- but now, because of direct voter involvement, it is a popularity contest.
The Representatives were to be the people’s advocates, and the Senators for the States, and that way, everyone would be adequately (hopefully) represented.
Sadly, that was changed with the 17th-
I believe we, as a nation, should spend the next two years having a Constitutional Convention specifically to eliminate the 17th, re-write the Income tax laws, and eliminate Article one, section eight- the “interstate commerce clause” that has allowed many Congresses to subvert the intent of the Constitution.