Originally, senators were selected by the state legislatures, not by popular elections. But this was changed with the 17th Amendment.
I was considering this for a while and I came to realize there was an obvious difference between the two houses before the Senate was changed. The House was called the Peoples house for a reason... they were elected directly by the People. The Senate was meant to receive its members from State Legislatures because they were suppose to be the more guided and experienced/or conservative and would not rush to change the country too much.
It was not as if the Senators were chosen from off the street. As I understand it a Senator wins an election to their state legislature where they are then chosen to go to Washington.
Now there was also another reason for this or at least imo the Senate were meant to really be responsible to the States. While the House was subject to the Peoples will. So the legislators in the House can be voted out and the Senators can be replaced by their States. Thats a great mix of the Federal Legislature and allows States to pursue their own agendas in Congress.
Instead what do we have now is Two houses with little difference between the two but both are elected by Popular consensus and both are subjected to money and corporations. Its as if the corporations wanted this from the beginning so that they can further influence our government through bribes and campaign financing.
There is a movement (however small) that calls for the repeal of the 17th amendment on the grounds of federalism because it removes too much power from the states.
Last edited by MathiasOfAthens; January 21, 2011 at 05:45 PM.
I've wondered about it myself. I would love to read some arguments about whether or not the repeal of the 17th amendment would exacerbate or eliminate corruption in the congress.
The voice of the people when once unleashed will never be silenced. Any such amendment is D.O.A.
As a political theory, the original construction of the Senate was a wise decision. If it still existed, there would be less regulation attached to spending allocated to the states. There would also be less of a desire to use the Interstate Commerce clause in the constitution for the feds to meddle in state affairs.
Grandson of Silver Guard, son of Maverick, and father to Mr MM|Rebel6666|Beer Money |bastard stepfather to Ferrets54 The Scriptorium is looking for great articles. Don't be bashful, we can help with the formatting and punctuation. I am only a pm away to you becoming a published author within the best archive of articles around. Post a challenge and start a debate Garb's Fight Club - the Challenge thread
.
Originally Posted by Simon Cashmere
Weighing into threads with the steel capped boots on just because you disagree with my viewpoints, is just embarrassing.
Originally Posted by Hagar_the_Horrible
As you journey through life take a minute every now and then to give a thought for the other fellow. He could be plotting something.
Your prob right VP. I would think this sort of repeal would be heavily pushed by the Tea Party and other conservatives who claim to be constitutionalists.
Anyway the reason for the 17th in the first place was accusations of political corruption... and corporate influence.
Originally, senators were selected by the state legislatures, not by popular elections. But this was changed with the 17th Amendment.
I was considering this for a while and I came to realize there was an obvious difference between the two houses before the Senate was changed. The House was called the Peoples house for a reason... they were elected directly by the People. The Senate was meant to receive its members from State Legislatures because they were suppose to be the more guided and experienced/or conservative and would not rush to change the country too much.
It was not as if the Senators were chosen from off the street. As I understand it a Senator wins an election to their state legislature where they are then chosen to go to Washington.
Now there was also another reason for this or at least imo the Senate were meant to really be responsible to the States. While the House was subject to the Peoples will. So the legislators in the House can be voted out and the Senators can be replaced by their States. Thats a great mix of the Federal Legislature and allows States to pursue their own agendas in Congress.
Instead what do we have now is Two houses with little difference between the two but both are elected by Popular consensus and both are subjected to money and corporations. Its as if the corporations wanted this from the beginning so that they can further influence our government through bribes and campaign financing.
There is a movement (however small) that calls for the repeal of the 17th amendment on the grounds of federalism because it removes too much power from the states.
Personally, I think the Senate is an archaic and horribly inefficient drag on our government and country. I want an amendment to abolish the Senate and make Congress based on proportional representation instead of "first past the post". Our democracy in its current form does not represent the will of the people very well. Oh, and a law that you have to vote or else you get a small fee.
The Senate is an inherently anti-democratic institution. A senator from a low-population state that may represent 100,000 people has the same voting power as a senator from a high-population state that may represent 50 million people. It also makes it very easy for special interests to get their way by consildating who they have to legally bribe with their "speech" (money).
The Senate is an inherently anti-democratic institution. A senator from a low-population state that may represent 100,000 people has the same voting power as a senator from a high-population state that may represent 50 million people. It also makes it very easy for special interests to get their way by consildating who they have to legally bribe with their "speech" (money).
That was exactly the point. It was designed to be a check on democracy to help avoid a tyranny of the majority. After all, what else is a democracy than Franklin's "two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"?
That was exactly the point. It was designed to be a check on democracy to help avoid a tyranny of the majority. After all, what else is a democracy than Franklin's "two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"?
It was also created when the differences in population were negligible. Now all it is is an impediment to democracy and government action that is killing the US.
Such institutions tend to change after 230 or so years and a whole new world from when it was created, and it is no longer effective in its current state. The Senate was never meant to need a supermajority of 60-40 to pass everything.
The Senate has become a tyranny of the minority, where special interest can hold up popular proposals that are needed.
The tyrrany of the majority fear is irrational and mostly just an excuse for it. It's also contributing to our two-party system, which is also bad for our democracy.
The Senate does far more bad than any potential evil majority it is keeping under control. The other two branches of government can fulfill that role anyways.
The only way the Senate even could prevent the evils of a majority is if they all resided in a couple states.
It is insane that one senator that represents far fewer people has the same power as another and you have to realize it essentially makes the House useless and deprives people of their representation, since the Senate is needed for any legislation, so the House makeup really doesn't matter much at all.
The position of the Senate of being beholden to voters weakens it's purpose, subjects it to the whims of popularity and puts the special interests ahead of the United States through campaign funding.
The Senate is an inherently anti-democratic institution
It is now. As constructed, it's purpose was clear and fundamental to the welfare of the United States. It is not by mistake that the indirectly elected branch of the legislature must give advice and consent to the indirectly elected executive.
Last edited by xcorps; January 22, 2011 at 12:37 AM.
"Every idea is an incitement. It offers itself for belief and if believed it is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it or some failure of energy stifles the movement at its birth. The only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker's enthusiasm for the result. Eloquence may set fire to reason." -Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
Not just the Senate, the House as well. This is due to the inherent corruptiblity of power, not due to a flaw in design.
It is insane that one senator that represents far fewer people has the same power as another and you have to realize it essentially makes the House useless and deprives people of their representation, since the Senate is needed for any legislation, so the House makeup really doesn't matter much at all.
No, this prevents a corrupt politician from abusing one group of citizens to the favor of another. Remember, all revenue and spending bills must begin in the House. The Senate is impotent to create new law on this matter. This is built in by design, to prevent, for example..California from outvoting South Dakota on a bill that would take money from South Dakota and give it to California. That's a very simple example, but it gets the point across.
The original design guaranteed both that all citizens would be represented and protected equally.
Last edited by xcorps; January 22, 2011 at 12:49 AM.
"Every idea is an incitement. It offers itself for belief and if believed it is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it or some failure of energy stifles the movement at its birth. The only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker's enthusiasm for the result. Eloquence may set fire to reason." -Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
I would support the repeal. It was put in place as part of the idea that the Senate should not be replaced on the whims of the people much like the House of Representatives was meant to/is. Even with the staggered elections (33 or 32 being up for re-election every 2 years) it is still fairly "whimsical". Many people argue that the Senators appointment is reliant on which Party holds control of the State Legislature, but the majority Party in the State Legislature would more than likely be the Party from which the popularly elected Senator would be from. The other argument always used is that the founding fathers put this in place because they thought the people were too stupid to elect the right people, and while this is partly true (also the reason for the Electoral College) it mostly has to do with the fact that Senators are supposed to be more prestigious and elected less on whims and popular opinion at the time of election and more on their legislative ability.
It was also created when the differences in population were negligible.
That's not true at all. It was created after intense debate involving state size and population and how it would reflect upon the legislature of the new republic. There were great fears from states like Delaware being unable to compee with states like Virginia or New York in the National government. The idea was that the senate would be able to provide a check upon the large states dominating the federal government.
Perhaps you should read up on the constitutional convention?
I would support a repeal. As others have mentioned, the difference between the Senate and the House at this point in time is only superficial, and the Senate no longer fulfills its intended purpose.
I'm not sure why VP believes a repeal would be DOA. The Tea Party movement can be interpreted as a constitutionalist movement, so there are actually plenty of people that may be in support of such a change that are politically active.
The tyrrany of the majority fear is irrational and mostly just an excuse for it. It's also contributing to our two-party system, which is also bad for our democracy.
Tell that to the blacks pre-Civil Rights, or the gay lobby over the last several decades. Tyranny of the majority is very real.
Last edited by LegionnaireX; January 23, 2011 at 12:21 AM.
I'm not sure why VP believes a repeal would be DOA. The Tea Party movement can be interpreted as a constitutionalist movement, so there are actually plenty of people that may be in support of such a change that are politically active.
If you were to mount a campaign against repeal, what would you use as the focus theme??? They want to take away our vote.
For the minorities, you run ads such as the march on Selma.
For the liberals you run ads on how corporations will be buying the seats.
For the Conservatives, you run ads reminding them that the legislatures cannot be trusted to fill the vacancies in a timely manner. Just look at most states when controveersial appointments are needed. Judge appointments, for example, are never quick at either the state or the federal level. How long do you wish the state to not be represented why the deals are cut? You need elections to avoid legislative deadlock.
Also -- If the Democrats think there is an advantage, the Republicans may oppose. And the reverse as well. Costitutional amendments need to cross party lines for support. In any case, getting the support of 2/3 of the states is a huge task.
Last edited by Viking Prince; January 23, 2011 at 02:38 AM.
Grandson of Silver Guard, son of Maverick, and father to Mr MM|Rebel6666|Beer Money |bastard stepfather to Ferrets54 The Scriptorium is looking for great articles. Don't be bashful, we can help with the formatting and punctuation. I am only a pm away to you becoming a published author within the best archive of articles around. Post a challenge and start a debate Garb's Fight Club - the Challenge thread
.
Originally Posted by Simon Cashmere
Weighing into threads with the steel capped boots on just because you disagree with my viewpoints, is just embarrassing.
Originally Posted by Hagar_the_Horrible
As you journey through life take a minute every now and then to give a thought for the other fellow. He could be plotting something.
I trust the will of the people over the motivations of state politicians. Democracy may not always be pleasant, but it is the only long term solution.
On another note, I would like to see the electoral college reformed so that a states allotment of electors doesn't include their two senators, rather just the number of representatives. I see no reason why the selection of the president should be entangled with the "Great Compromise", the Senate is more than enough of a balance in that regard.
I trust the will of the people over the motivations of state politicians. Democracy may not always be pleasant, but it is the only long term solution.
On another note, I would like to see the electoral college reformed so that a states allotment of electors doesn't include their two senators, rather just the number of representatives. I see no reason why the selection of the president should be entangled with the "Great Compromise", the Senate is more than enough of a balance in that regard.
I think the problem is that we have two houses that are really not that much different from each other. There are a few differences, mainly that the Senate can filibuster and only the House can propose bills dealing with the budget...
Like I said the People elect the representatives to their state legislature. When there is an empty spot in the senate the state legislature then selects someone to go to Washington. So in the beginning the Senator was elected by the People. I also believe one house was suppose to be for the people in Washington an the other house was for the states. Hence the Senate was for the states interests and the House was for the peoples interests. Now there is no state interests in Congress. Sure Senators can work for their state but they are mainly working for their district so they can be re-elected. Just like House Representatives.
They changed it because the state legislatures were owned by Trusts and big business.
The Senate became known as the "Millionaires Club"
Indeed, its easy to forget the incredibly corrupt political history of the time and the Progressive movement led by Robert Lafollette and Teddy Roosevelt which overturned the "Smokey Room" politics that controlled who got on the ballot for elections and who went to Washington for senators. There is nothing in that system worth reviving, and Fighting Bob and Teddy would roll in their graves if they were to read this thread.
And personally I want to continue to popularly elect our upper house so I can contiue to rub the Brits oddly shaped noses in how backwards and archaic their political system is. I mean what next, are we going to let the President choose when to hold national elections?! The horror! My imaginary ancestors who fought at Bunker Hill did not die face down in the mud for this.
Last edited by Sphere; January 25, 2011 at 02:59 AM.
Senators selected by State Legislatures.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Simon Cashmere
Tell that to the blacks pre-Civil Rights, or the gay lobby over the last several decades. Tyranny of the majority is very real.
