May 15, 2004
REPEAL ALL OF THEM AFTER THE 12TH::
The problem with the 17th (Bruce Bartlett, May 12, 2004, Townhall)
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 at the end of this year.
How did they get the pre-17th Senators to vote through the Amendment? Posted by Orrin Judd at May 15, 2004 10:50 AM
That's a damned good question.
Posted by: Paul Cella at May 15, 2004 11:26 AM
How are we going to get the post-17th Senators, with their 98% re-election rates, to vote through the repeal?
Remember, 1913 was the time when "Progressivism" was at its peak. The trust-busters were in full flight, the Fed. income tax was new, and the Federal Reserve was being created. Anything was possible.
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 15, 2004 12:39 PMoj-
Jim, of course,is spot on. Direct democracy, at the federal level, is a progressive political fad. The framers understood full well it's shortcomings. Progressive political thought is as silly and short-sighted as its contemporary proponents.The most amazing aspect of the period is the ease with which the warnings were ignored and categorized as unsophisticated.
Posted by: Tom-C.,Stamford,Ct. at May 15, 2004 12:54 PM"How are we going to get the post-17th Senators, with their 98% re-election rates, to vote through the repeal?"
That's why Article V specifies two methods of proposing amendments for ratification by the States, one of which bypasses Congress. Start pushing for that method, and listen to the fear of a "runaway convention" start up. If it gets close enough, those Senators might just give in to the inevitable and pass the most popular, like this one, and hope that the Legislature will continue to favor incumbents.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at May 15, 2004 1:24 PMBy the time the 17th amendment passed the Senate, most states effectively already had direct elections. Some states just held a non-binding preference primary, which state legislators were free to ignore at their peril. Other states required legislature candidates to pledge whether or not they would vote for the winner of the primary (again, at the risk of losing if they refused).
Eventually, there were enough Senators who had been elected in quasi-direct elections to pass the 17th amendment.
And there should be no problem with every state having its own way of selecting its Senators. (Just as there should be no problem with every state choosing how to allocate its representation in the House.) But why is there this Progressive urge to want to impose unitary solutions to problems on this country? From prohibition to Senate elections to speed limits to abortion to marriage laws, the people who trumpet "choice" and "diversity" always come down on the side of coercion and uniformity.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at May 15, 2004 2:34 PMWell said, Raoul.
Posted by: Bartman at May 15, 2004 3:55 PMI do have a fondness for the 13th Amendment.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 16, 2004 9:08 AMI have one for the 21st amendment..
Posted by: John at May 16, 2004 11:52 PMThe 20th (conveeening congress on 1/3 and the inauguration on 1/20) was a good thing. and 27 Part of the original bill of rights which was delayed in ratification is also good.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at May 17, 2004 7:07 PM