Repel the 17th Amendment?

[thumpcbd]

I agree with Zell on this, but then again his is one Democrat I have voted for before.

Casey

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38251
---------------------------------------------------------------

Zell Miller: Dump
17th Amendment
Maverick Democrat wants to go back to legislatures appointing U.S. senators

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 28, 2004
5:00 p.m. Eastern



© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Georgia Democratic Sen. Zell Miller is calling for the United States to restore the wishes of its Founding Fathers and empower state legislatures to appoint senators rather than be elected by voters.

The retiring Miller, who has garnered attention over the past year with stinging critiques of his Democratic Party, believes rescinding the 17th Amendment would curb the power of special interests in Washington while increasing the power of state governments.

"The individuals are not so much at fault as the rotten and decaying foundation of what is no longer a republic," Miller said on the Senate floor, according to the Associated Press. "It is the system that stinks. And it's only going to get worse because that perfect balance our brilliant Founding Fathers put in place in 1787 no longer exists."

Members of the U.S. House have been chosen by voters since the nation's founding.

Miller, a former two-term governor of Georgia, contends the Constitution's prescription for balancing the interests of large and small states and the power of state and federal governments was destroyed when the U.S. ratified the 17th Amendment in 1913.

The senator, who will finish his Senate service in January, has become the Republicans' favorite Democrat with his endorsement of President Bush's re-election and support of many key GOP positions.

His new book, "A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat," asserts the party is badly out of step with the country.

He writes: "And so, Mr. Miller went to Washington. I wish I could say the experience has been like Jimmy Stewart's in 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.' I wish I could say that I found Washington all I had ever dreamed it to be, the place where the great issues of the day are debated and solved, and great giants walk those hallowed halls. I so wanted Robert Louis Stevenson to be wrong when he wrote, 'It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive.'"

[Adam D]

That's moronic.

[mc E]

repel?

[thumpcbd]

Originally posted by Adam D
That's moronic.

How so? What is mornic about it?

Originally posted by mc E
repel?

And what do you mean by repel?

Casey

[MysteryMeat]

Originally posted by thumpcbd
How so? What is mornic about it?


And what do you mean by repel?

Casey

*repeal

[thumpcbd]

Originally posted by MysteryMeat
*repeal

Bah...whatever....I believe most folks here know what I meant by that....

Casey

[Adam D]

Originally posted by thumpcbd
How so? What is mornic about it?

Well, most obviously, it's not very democratic.

Originally posted by Adam D
Well, most obviously, it's not very democratic.

True - but it may be more representative - go figure.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by xiannaix
True - but it may be more representative - go figure.

how would it be more representative?

Originally posted by Adam D
how would it be more representative?

First, I used a conditional form not a declarative.

I think it an interesting question.

Clearly there is more legal precedent to support the older form than the more recent method of electing senators....in terms of history....or is my math off?

It may be that state legislators selecting senators would bring the decision closer to home - then again maybe not.

By way of example. A couple election cycles ago Senator Wellstone (MN deceased) was campaigning for election dollars in southern CA - WTF?

I just think it is worth investigating and debating and should not be rejected out of hand - that all.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by xiannaix
First, I used a conditional form not a declarative.

I think it an interesting question.

Clearly there is more legal precedent to support the older form than the more recent method of electing senators....in terms of history....or is my math off?

No, I believe you're correct on the math.

The intent of putting that decision in the hands of the state legislatures was to ensure political elites had a body of direct control in the federal government to offset the house of representatives, which has always been popularly elected. That's Madison for you. It's an oligarchial system that was every bit the corruption of democracy that Madison desired.

It may be that state legislators selecting senators would bring the decision closer to home - then again maybe not.

See above.

By way of example. A couple election cycles ago Senator Wellstone (MN deceased) was campaigning for election dollars in southern CA - WTF?

Wellstone wasn't really helped out much by the DLC, so he had to campaign for funds anywhere he could get them.

I just think it is worth investigating and debating and should not be rejected out of hand - that all.

I don't see a value in it unless you want to undo democracy.

Originally posted by Adam D


No, I believe you're correct on the math.

The intent of putting that decision in the hands of the state legislatures was to ensure political elites had a body of direct control in the federal government to offset the house of representatives, which has always been popularly elected. That's Madison for you. It's an oligarchial system that was every bit the corruption of democracy that Madison desired.

[/b]

See above.

[/b]

Wellstone wasn't really helped out much by the DLC, so he had to campaign for funds anywhere he could get them.



I don't see a value in it unless you want to undo democracy. [/B]

Wellstone may have tried Minnesota don't you think?

Value is debateable - your conclusion is not necessarily correct - it is an opinion. One form may be more or less susceptible to corruption than the other.

Madison did not seek to corrupt democracy - he was mistrustful of corruption and saw popular elections as a source. He was an elitist - no doubt - but his goal was greater democracy rather than less. Now, his method you may have have big problems with. And you've noted that. Sometimes the problem is not too few people voting but too many - this would be a Madisonian POV - and I share it at times.

[Auspex]

Pure democracy was never what this country was supposed to be- The consititution was built to create a government comprised of and accountable to the people while avoiding the "Three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner" pitfalls of a direct democracy.


Remember, even if the 17th amendment were repealed, Senators would still be chosen by state legislatures, who are in turn elected by the popoulace. The general population still have a say, there's just another layer of abstraction present.

Originally posted by Auspex
Pure democracy was never what this country was supposed to be- The consititution was built to create a government comprised of and accountable to the people while avoiding the "Three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner" pitfalls of a direct democracy.


Remember, even if the 17th amendment were repealed, Senators would still be chosen by state legislatures, who are in turn elected by the popoulace. The general population still have a say, there's just another layer of abstraction present.

hmmm

perhaps you should consider resubmitting your comment with pedagogic references, absurd editorializing and a few insults - it may be easier to accept.

A very acute comment - well said.

[thumpcbd]

A followup article by a different author on repelling the 17th.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/b...20040512.shtml
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is only one time when a U.S. senator is really free to speak the truth. That is when he has announced his retirement. Since he no longer has to worry about raising money, pandering to voters or risking retaliation from his colleagues, he can say what he really thinks about issues no other member of the Senate will talk about. For this reason, it is worth listening to Sen. Zell Miller, Democrat of Georgia, who recently spoke a truth that no senator except one who is retiring would dare say.

On April 28, Miller, the last genuinely conservative Democrat we likely will ever see in the Senate, laid the blame for what ails that august body at the door of the 17th amendment to the Constitution. This is the provision that provides for popular election of senators.

Few people today know that the Founding Fathers never intended for senators to be popularly elected. The Constitution originally provided that senators would be chosen by state legislatures. The purpose was to provide the states -- as states -- an institutional role in the federal government. In effect, senators were to function as ambassadors from the states, which were expected to retain a large degree of sovereignty even after ratification of the Constitution, thereby ensuring that their rights would be protected in a federal system.

The role of senators as representatives of the states was assured by a procedure, now forgotten, whereby states would "instruct" their senators how to vote on particular issues. Such instructions were not conveyed to members of the House of Representatives because they have always been popularly elected and are not expected to speak for their states, but only for their constituents.

When senators represented states as states, rather than just being super House members as they are now, they zealously protected states' rights. This term became discredited during the civil rights struggle of the 1960s as a code word for racism -- allowing Southern states to resist national pressure to integrate. But clearly this is an aberration. States obviously have interests that may conflict with federal priorities on a wide variety of issues that defy easy ideological classification. Many states, for example, would probably enact more liberal laws relating to the environment, health and business regulation if allowed by Washington.

Two factors led to enactment of the 17th amendment. First was the problem that many state legislatures deadlocked on their selections for the Senate. The upper house and the lower house could not agree on a choice, or it was prohibitively difficult for one candidate to get an absolute majority in each house (as opposed to a plurality), which was required by federal law. Some states went without representation in the Senate for years as a consequence.

The second problem involved a perception that election of senators by state legislatures made them more susceptible to corruption by special interests. The Hearst newspapers were a major force arguing this point in the early 1900s.

The pressure of public opinion eventually forced the Senate to approve a constitutional amendment changing the election of senators to our current system of popular vote. The fact that many states, such as Oregon, had already adopted a system whereby legislatures were required to choose senators selected by a popular vote was ignored.

The 17th amendment was ratified in 1913. It is no coincidence that the sharp rise in the size and power of the federal government starts in this year (the 16th amendment, establishing a federal income tax, ratified the same year, was also important).

As George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki notes, prior to the 17th amendment, senators resisted delegating power to Washington in order to keep it at the state and local level. "As a result, the long term size of the federal government remained fairly stable during the pre-Seventeenth Amendment era," he wrote.

Zywicki also finds little evidence of corruption in the Senate that can be traced to the pre-1913 electoral system. By contrast, there is much evidence that the post-1913 system has been deeply corruptive. As Miller put it, "Direct elections of senators ... allowed Washington's special interests to call the shots, whether it is filling judicial vacancies, passing laws or issuing regulations."

Miller also lays much of the blame for the current impasse in confirming federal judges at the door of the 17th amendment. Consequently, on April 28 he introduced S.J.Res. 35 in order to repeal that provision of the Constitution.

Over the years, a number of legal scholars have called for repeal of the 17th amendment. An excellent summary of their arguments appears in Ralph Rossum's recent book, "Federalism, the Supreme Court and the Seventeenth Amendment." They should at least get a hearing before Zell Miller departs the Senate end the end of this year.