Here in Idaho there has been a recent dustup regarding the 17th Amendment and comments made by two Republican candidates for Congress. (Idaho Press-Tribune article, editorial) This made me realize here was one area of the Constitution that I was not familiar with the original intent of. So I did some research on the topic and decided that the time had come to seriously look at repealing the 17th Amendment or, at the very least, constitutionally mandating term limits.
Originally, the Constitution provided that those who served in U.S. House of Representatives would be chosen by the people and those serving in the U.S. Senate would be chosen by the individual state legislatures. The method of choosing U.S. Senators changed when the 17th Amendment, proposed in 1912 under the Taft Presidency, was ratified in 1913 during the Wilson Presidency. With the Amendment’s ratification, those who serve in the U.S. Senate would from that time forward be elected by popular vote. By changing the way a Senator was elected the states, who up until that point had a say in the activities of the Federal Government, no longer had any voice representing them and lost a great deal of sovereignty in one quick act.
Federalist Papers numbers 62 and 63, written by James Madison, speak to the reason behind the state legislatures having the power to appoint Senators. In Federalist Paper 62, Madison states two major reasons that it was decided to have the state legislatures appoint the senators. The first is that “the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty” and that “the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.” Madison’s second reason regarding the Senate method of election is that “the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States.”
Thus Federalist Paper 62 states that part of the original intent concerning the state legislatures choosing those who would represent them in the Senate was to enshrine the sovereignty that the states retained after the adoption of the Constitution. By the state legislatures having the authority to elect/appoint the Senators representing their state, the states had a voice in the actions and creation of law at the federal level. Any legislation put forth in Congress had to receive the majority approval of both the people and the states. This power sharing between the people and the states allowed for the keeping of improper or bad legislation from seeing fruition.
In Federalist Paper 63 Madison argues that by having the state legislatures choose those who serve in the Senate provides a check that “may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.” Knowing human nature and how people can be whipped into a frenzy over an issue through the use of an emotional appeal, Madison claims that the means in which Senators are chosen will provide an effective block to such events or at least slow the process down enough in order for logic to take hold and override any emotional frenzy that may be occurring over a specific issue.
Madison’s logic behind this type of check being effective against such irregular passion, illicit advantage, or misled is “that a people spread over an extensive region cannot, like the crowded inhabitants of a small district, be subject to the infection of violent passions, or to the danger of combining in pursuit of unjust measures.” Madison comments at the question of “how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?” However Madison warns that “this advantage ought not to be considered as superseding the use of auxiliary precautions.”
With the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, the reasoning behind original intent was ignored and overridden with the states eagerly following along. With this one act the states gave up much of any remaining semblance of sovereignty guaranteed them in the Constitution. The federal government no longer was beholden to the states desires because the states no longer had a voice. There was no way for the states as sovereign entities within the republic to stop any legislation that impacted them. There was also no protection from a sudden surge of irregular passion among the people or illicit advantage of political parties or interest groups. The people were left to their own devices whether for good or ill now that they alone decided who would populate the entirety of Congress. What this Amendment has done is to allow the federal government to constantly and consistently chip away at what little sovereignty the states have to do the will of the citizens of their respective states on a local level through unfunded mandates, federal regulations that inhibit the states’ ability to do what is best for their respective citizens, and extorting compliance through the threat of withheld federal funds to a wayward state. It has also allowed the federal government to whittle away the people’s liberties and freedoms in exchange for unsustainable levels of handouts, benefits, and false illusions of equality. With this emotion rather than logic mindset we have seen the passage healthcare reform, massive bailouts, increased social spending leading to increased national debt, and now the possibility of economy busting Cap and Trade legislation becoming law. It has even gone so far as a Congressional Bill looking to rectify the inequality of women’s restroom access in federal buildings as compared to that of men.
The 17th Amendment has been a major force in getting America into the position that it is today: broke and overstepping its Constitutional bounds. To begin fixing the problems that we as Americans face today, this Amendment will have to be revisited either through complete repeal or through modification. Despite returning to the original intent of the Senate and providing an additional backstop to the ever increasing federal power over the states and the people, complete repeal does not have the necessary popular support needed for repeal. Trying to take the ability to vote for Senators away from the people and place it back into the hands of the state legislatures will not sit well with the American people so at this time repeal is not a serious consideration.
However, a Constitutional Amendment is a real possibility. The popularity of term limits has been increasing over the recent past. In a recent Fox News poll, 93% of respondents supported term limits for Congress. While this is an unscientific poll, it speaks volumes for the American mindset. Any legislative action at the state level has already been declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court (U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thorton (93-1456)). The majority in this 5-4 ruling stated that: “State imposition of term limits for congressional service would effect such a fundamental change in the constitutional framework that it must come through a constitutional amendment properly passed under the procedures set forth in Article V. Absent such an amendment, allowing individual States to craft their own congressional qualifications would erode the structure designed by the Framers.” Therefore a Constitutional Amendment adding term limits very well could have the requisite popular support to be ratified. It must be well understood that such an amendment would not survive going through both chambers of Congress. The possibility of even clearing one chamber with the requisite percentage of votes is highly unlikely. Many of those currently in Congress see it as a life long career and have no intention of supporting or doing anything that will jeopardize it. Thus We the People must get our state legislatures to begin the dialogue moving in that direction rather than expecting Congress to do it on their own.
If strong, vocal, popular support can spread into enough states across America, we can succeed. Then We the People can begin the process of cleaning up the mess created by the status quo career politicians and bureaucrats and take back our country from those who seek the continual growth of power, regardless of party affiliation. With this being a campaign year, attend public events with candidates and ask them about their position on the subject while expressing yours. It won’t be the repealing of the 17th Amendment, but it will be a good, solid start.
Originally, the Constitution provided that those who served in U.S. House of Representatives would be chosen by the people and those serving in the U.S. Senate would be chosen by the individual state legislatures. The method of choosing U.S. Senators changed when the 17th Amendment, proposed in 1912 under the Taft Presidency, was ratified in 1913 during the Wilson Presidency. With the Amendment’s ratification, those who serve in the U.S. Senate would from that time forward be elected by popular vote. By changing the way a Senator was elected the states, who up until that point had a say in the activities of the Federal Government, no longer had any voice representing them and lost a great deal of sovereignty in one quick act.
Federalist Papers numbers 62 and 63, written by James Madison, speak to the reason behind the state legislatures having the power to appoint Senators. In Federalist Paper 62, Madison states two major reasons that it was decided to have the state legislatures appoint the senators. The first is that “the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty” and that “the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.” Madison’s second reason regarding the Senate method of election is that “the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States.”
Thus Federalist Paper 62 states that part of the original intent concerning the state legislatures choosing those who would represent them in the Senate was to enshrine the sovereignty that the states retained after the adoption of the Constitution. By the state legislatures having the authority to elect/appoint the Senators representing their state, the states had a voice in the actions and creation of law at the federal level. Any legislation put forth in Congress had to receive the majority approval of both the people and the states. This power sharing between the people and the states allowed for the keeping of improper or bad legislation from seeing fruition.
In Federalist Paper 63 Madison argues that by having the state legislatures choose those who serve in the Senate provides a check that “may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.” Knowing human nature and how people can be whipped into a frenzy over an issue through the use of an emotional appeal, Madison claims that the means in which Senators are chosen will provide an effective block to such events or at least slow the process down enough in order for logic to take hold and override any emotional frenzy that may be occurring over a specific issue.
Madison’s logic behind this type of check being effective against such irregular passion, illicit advantage, or misled is “that a people spread over an extensive region cannot, like the crowded inhabitants of a small district, be subject to the infection of violent passions, or to the danger of combining in pursuit of unjust measures.” Madison comments at the question of “how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?” However Madison warns that “this advantage ought not to be considered as superseding the use of auxiliary precautions.”
With the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, the reasoning behind original intent was ignored and overridden with the states eagerly following along. With this one act the states gave up much of any remaining semblance of sovereignty guaranteed them in the Constitution. The federal government no longer was beholden to the states desires because the states no longer had a voice. There was no way for the states as sovereign entities within the republic to stop any legislation that impacted them. There was also no protection from a sudden surge of irregular passion among the people or illicit advantage of political parties or interest groups. The people were left to their own devices whether for good or ill now that they alone decided who would populate the entirety of Congress. What this Amendment has done is to allow the federal government to constantly and consistently chip away at what little sovereignty the states have to do the will of the citizens of their respective states on a local level through unfunded mandates, federal regulations that inhibit the states’ ability to do what is best for their respective citizens, and extorting compliance through the threat of withheld federal funds to a wayward state. It has also allowed the federal government to whittle away the people’s liberties and freedoms in exchange for unsustainable levels of handouts, benefits, and false illusions of equality. With this emotion rather than logic mindset we have seen the passage healthcare reform, massive bailouts, increased social spending leading to increased national debt, and now the possibility of economy busting Cap and Trade legislation becoming law. It has even gone so far as a Congressional Bill looking to rectify the inequality of women’s restroom access in federal buildings as compared to that of men.
The 17th Amendment has been a major force in getting America into the position that it is today: broke and overstepping its Constitutional bounds. To begin fixing the problems that we as Americans face today, this Amendment will have to be revisited either through complete repeal or through modification. Despite returning to the original intent of the Senate and providing an additional backstop to the ever increasing federal power over the states and the people, complete repeal does not have the necessary popular support needed for repeal. Trying to take the ability to vote for Senators away from the people and place it back into the hands of the state legislatures will not sit well with the American people so at this time repeal is not a serious consideration.
However, a Constitutional Amendment is a real possibility. The popularity of term limits has been increasing over the recent past. In a recent Fox News poll, 93% of respondents supported term limits for Congress. While this is an unscientific poll, it speaks volumes for the American mindset. Any legislative action at the state level has already been declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court (U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thorton (93-1456)). The majority in this 5-4 ruling stated that: “State imposition of term limits for congressional service would effect such a fundamental change in the constitutional framework that it must come through a constitutional amendment properly passed under the procedures set forth in Article V. Absent such an amendment, allowing individual States to craft their own congressional qualifications would erode the structure designed by the Framers.” Therefore a Constitutional Amendment adding term limits very well could have the requisite popular support to be ratified. It must be well understood that such an amendment would not survive going through both chambers of Congress. The possibility of even clearing one chamber with the requisite percentage of votes is highly unlikely. Many of those currently in Congress see it as a life long career and have no intention of supporting or doing anything that will jeopardize it. Thus We the People must get our state legislatures to begin the dialogue moving in that direction rather than expecting Congress to do it on their own.
If strong, vocal, popular support can spread into enough states across America, we can succeed. Then We the People can begin the process of cleaning up the mess created by the status quo career politicians and bureaucrats and take back our country from those who seek the continual growth of power, regardless of party affiliation. With this being a campaign year, attend public events with candidates and ask them about their position on the subject while expressing yours. It won’t be the repealing of the 17th Amendment, but it will be a good, solid start.
Posts
5 comments:
Here’s a practical Tea Party type strategy to create a “Citizen Congress”
A Congress of career politicians will never represent “We the People”, because their highest priority is getting reelected with the help of Big Money.
But “We the People” have more votes than “Big Money” has, and thus can end Congress as a career for professional politicians by never reelecting incumbents.
We can impose single terms every two years, by never reelecting Congress.
Always vote, but only for challengers. Never reelect incumbents.
Keep this up until Congress is mostly “one-termers”, a citizen Congress.
Then keep it up every election, to make a citizen Congress a permanent reality.
Every American’s only intelligent choice is to never reelect anyone in Congress!
The only infallible, unstoppable, guaranteed way to get a truly new Congress,
and a cleaned up new politics is
NEVER REELECT ANY INCUMBENT! DO IT EVERY ELECTION
In other words, don't let anyone serve more than one term, ever again.
NEVER REELECT ANYONE IN CONGRESS. DO IT EVERY ELECTION!
I’m Nelson Lee Walker of tenurecorrupts.com
Mr. Walker, thank you for commenting on this post. I agree with your basic premise that politicians who remain in their elected position too long become detached from the realities of life for the majority of those they represent and stand a very good chance of being subverted by special interests. Tenure politicians generally do not properly represent those who elected them in the first place. I believe that the system we have in place works when ran properly. But that is not currently the case and needs to be fixed.
In regards to your position of never re-electing an incumbent, I don’t completely agree. The reason for this is an issue of effective time on the job. Having worked as a lobbyist at a state level in two different states, I have noticed that it generally takes until the second or third year in office for an elected official to become somewhat effective at representing their constituents. Many newly elected representatives are forced to rely on staff and lobbyists from the various interest groups to help them with the steep learning curve of issues they are required to understand in order to make proper decisions on proposed legislation and budgetary items. One term and out, especially at the House of Representatives level, would increase the power of the Executive Branch, bureaucratic agencies, legislative staff, and special interest groups to an unacceptable level and would create more harm than good.
I could potentially be convinced of your position for Senators due to the fact that they have a six year term which would give them plenty of time to become effective in a single elected term. Also with the staggered re-election cycle it allows for the institutional knowledge of how the process works and why certain things are done in a specific way to remain.
As for those who serve in the House of Representatives, I think that a three term limit or so would be reasonable. The first term would be to get on their feet and obtain the necessary understanding of the myriad of issues and procedures they are required to understand and implement. The other two would provide a time of effective representation for their constituents. One of the big issues with the House of Representatives is that there is 100% re-election cycle every two years. This would be a huge drain on institutional knowledge regarding the issues and procedures which would cause a great deal of chaos that would be detrimental to the governing of this country. There would be other fixes to the system that would be required as well.
Wow! Corey, it is not often that I get a sober, well reasoned response to one of my tirades. Thank you very much.
I must agree with all of your positions, but you must realize that I am coming from a position of desperation forced by the utter impossibility of ending
the grip of the "pros" who get reelected 95% of the time. If voters would only ONCE throw out 50% of the bums, just to shake up the system, I would be happy.
The unspoken premise behind my proposal is this:
In any aggregation of 435 free individuals such as the House, in a very short time, the natural leaders and "quick studies", if unhampered by restrictions such as seniority, will rise to the occasion and immediately provide the leadership of the organization for constructive action.This will always take place for good or ill. I believe the "good" will generally prevail.
What do you think?
I don’t see it as a tirade, only frustration voiced by one who, like many in this country, is disillusioned with the group of supposed representatives who currently hold power. I am right there with you on that. I agree that desperate times require desperate measures. However, men who make decisions out of desperation often regret those decisions later. There is small but subtle difference between these last two statements. My point is that something must be done that is out of the status quo but any rash decisions may in the end cause more damage than they repair. The steps we will have to take in order to begin solving this problem will have to be well thought out and deliberate. These decisions must be made through logic rather than emotion. The reliance on emotion in making what should be logical decisions is part of what brought this country to this point.
Another point to remember is that it has taken over 100 years to get us to the point we are at and it won’t be fixed in one or two election cycles. I suspect that even if there is major change within Congress, Presidency, and many of the agencies that make up the bulk of the federal government the American people will not see the effects of attempts to return to the type of limited government that the Founders envisioned for at least eight election cycles. There will be setbacks and difficult fights along the way. I believe it is possible but will require the patience of the American people in the process.
The first major change that needs to occur is a u-turn in the current popular political philosophy. It must again become acceptable to be successful in America. The ability to go as far as a person desires to go in life must be applauded not demonized. Tax codes, political rhetoric, and regulation must be adjusted to allow the American Dream to flourish. Wealth redistribution must in turn become a despised and rejected philosophy. People must also understand that having only half of the population paying taxes is a bad policy. The idea of self-responsibility must also make a comeback. Being responsible for one’s actions is greatly reviled today and has been replaced with victimization. Until this happens, many of the social programs will remain political sacred cows and off limits to the kind of reforms and reductions that are necessary to rein them in. Another mindset that needs to change is the belief that government creates and provides the people’s liberties as well as enforcing equality rather than the fact that there are inherent rights and equality relates to opportunity not outcome. People must be allowed to fail in order for them to grow and gain strength. The continued misuse of the basic human right argument by the political elite must be countered until people once again understand that government is there to restrain freedom not create and dispense it. One last thing is that the populace tends to elect like minded representatives so this change in mindset is of upmost importance for this country to successfully return to its roots.
I agree with you that once true statesmen are again being elected to office in the numbers required to make real change, good will prevail. Once elected, these statesmen would be quick studies and ready for leadership positions within a year or so and upon taking leadership positions would be in perfect form to pursue and enact the kinds of changes required. We also need to be training up these future leaders at home and not merely rely on the on the job training that will be thrust upon them once in office. Again a little patience would be required from the American people as these new leaders are training and preparing for their roles.
The big question is how to get these changes accomplished. We both know that the old guard will not go quietly and there is a good deal of voters who like what they are getting from the public trough or are led by emotion rather than logic. The old guard knows this and is willing to exploit such splits among the American electorate as they have done for decades. They have been quite successful at this and we must find a way to counter it at all levels. Once this is done it will become easier to get the right people elected to office. Any move to restrict time in office through term limits or the repealing of the 17th Amendment so that the states again have a say in the actions of the federal government will have to come from the states themselves. Those in Congress will not willingly or voluntarily do it on their own accord. The current uprising against elected officials needs to remain strong and ongoing long past the 2010 and 2012 elections. There also needs to be coordination between the various groups both within and across state lines in order to create a strong coalition that can begin to work towards these changes at the grassroots level and then begin to push them up the line until they are accomplished. These changes must begin at the local level and work up in order to be successful. It is We the People who grant the government its power not the other way around. It is time that we remember that and use it to our advantage.
Post a Comment