Repealing the 17th is hugely anti big federal government, as you noted Glenn. AND it favors the small states over the big states. AND were it repealed today and replaced with state appointed senators, the US Senate would be 56 GOP senators, most likely, since 28 legislatures are controlled by the GOP today.
The Democrats will never support this, unfortunately. For the same reasons that the Progressives supported the 17th in the first place.
Great commentary, as always. And definitely something that all of you in substack land should read.
it would also solve some of the problems we see right now. John Thune says he's a republican, but he very obviously is not representing the State of South Dakota. But if he were appointed by the legislature, they could recall him, fire him, whatever, for pulling this crap.
Correction: The state couldn’t fire him, but the legislature and governor would have far more influence since staying Senator would depend upon their goodwill not statewide elections that little reflect how well the Senator has served the interests of the State.
I would be more inclined to repeal the 19th amendment. Democrats would never win another election without liberal white women; specifically AWFLs. But repealing the 17th is a great idea, as our founding father never intended for any election to be by popular vote except for local representatives. At the ratification of our constitution the highest office you could vote for was your congressman. Senators were elected by the state legislatures and president by the electoral college.
In the late 1700s and most of the 1800s, even the House of Representatives had about 50% turnover every two years. There were a few big names who stayed in for years--John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and a few more. But most served a term or two and then left. Before the Civil War, most politicians considered it to be more important to be in their state legislature than in Congress. Even Abe Lincoln didn't serve very long in Congress--one term. He served four terms in the Illinois legislature.
If anything, the 17th Amendment made it easier for politicians to become professional, long-term occupants of their office. If the intention of the 17th Amendment was to give the people more of a voice, it seems to have actually done the opposite.
Another bad decision came from the courts--the ruling on Reynolds vs Sims (not you, Glenn) in 1964 that required states to apportion their state senate seats by population rather than allowing each county to have a state senator. The thinking was that the counties were not sovereign units like the states. But it gave control of state governments to the big cities, and we've been living with the effects of that ever since. It's a likely reason why some states are facing demands to break up or re-align--eastern Oregon would rather be part of Idaho, some counties in Illinois would rather join Indiana, western counties in Maryland would rather be part of WV, some proposals to split California into 4 or 5 states because of regional differences.
Fascinating idea. We are living in times when big things are being debated. Conservatives should participate with big ideas of their own rather than act like the rear guard of a retreating army. If Communism is busy capturing the Democratic Party, we should take the opportunity to counterattack. Repealing the 17th Amendment is certainly a big enough idea to make the country rethink where it is and where it's going. And then the Sixteenth should appeal to almost everybody. Believe it or not, the people paying little in taxes are almost always the ones who hate it most because it hurts them most. And don't get me started on the 19th.
1. The Lincoln Douglas race of 1858 was very much a race as the candidates were pre-nominated by their parties and spent the fall debating each other over slavery. Under the 17th Lincoln would have been elected but because of distracting, Democrats maintained control of the legislature and returned Douglas to office.
2. In theory I support legislative election of senators as this was important to the Constitutional scheme. But there is no reason to believe modern legislatures are any more worthy than voters of electing decent candidates who would take seriously, the interests of the public.
3. Democrats are about a hair away from demanding the end of the Senate itself as a violation of democracy just as they have the electoral college.
The interest of a state is the interests of the citizens of that state. Back when the Constitution was written, it was assumed that the states stood for the people. The difference with the House is that each member serves only a small district and is therefore more responsible and of course the House gives proportionate representation based on size. Today the members of state legislatures are just as driven by the broken national politics as the members of Congress are and anyone they choose would serve the national interests of the party not the people of their state as intended.
I’m sorry, that is not at all why it was written. In fact, it is actually quite contrary to the concerns of those debating the document way back when. The Founders were terrified of too much power being concentrated in any one body, and they were extremely fearful of a pure democracy, which they thought, rightly, would lead to mob rule.
The entire foundation of the Constitution is diffusing power among competing interests in order to make it difficult for power to accumulate in any one area. As each interest fought for their priorities, if too extreme the other powers would block it, leading to only action being taken which had a general agreement across many interests. The Legislature to balance the interests of the people and the interests of the individual states as political actors. Of course, the individual states had legislatures subject to the voters of their state, who would have interest in the selection of their Senator as well as the issues pertaining to that State.
What you say is largely true which is why the Constitution ended up written the way it was and why we we have a federal system based on diffusion of power. It is a fact, however, that the weakness of the national government under the Articles of Confederation WAS the reason for the calling of the Constitutional Convention. The delegates understood that a stronger government was needed. The fight was over how strong and the compromise reflected that debate.
Yes, actually they came together to amend the articles and ended up just throwing them to the curb and starting over.
And what I said was not largely true - it was completely true. Yes, there were huge questions that were argued over and it was a close thing all the way. There was a huge dynamic about big state and small state which was another reason for the senate being structured as it ended up being structured. And why the president is not elected by a popular vote.
Who is saying otherwise? All I said was that the convention was called because everyone recognized that under the current system, the 13 states were not strong enough to survive. The fact that we ended up with an incredibly uniquely structured but strong ferderalized system of state and federal governments united under a strong constitution that difuses power in various ways was a result of the serendipidy of necessary compromise and the work of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.
Just as important as repeal of the 17th Amendment would be an amendment which would allow state legislatures to apportion their upper houses geographically, they way the US Senate does and the way the state legislatures were all (except unicameral Nebraska) apportioned before Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) and its progeny - which were probably actually more harmful to responsible state government than the 17th Amendment was to the federal government.
Repealing the 17th Amendment has campaign finance reform built in, if it were to pass, any "major donor" to a senator/candidate and/or to a RNSC/DNSC would have their power greatly diminished. I believe that it would cease to be a recipient of such campaign largesse. It would also diminish senate majority/minority leader's ability to strong-arm senators into voting against their state's, national interest items.
Antonin Scalia called for repeal of the 17th amendment during an appearance with Stephen Bryer at Texas Tech Law School back in 2010. Given the political atomization we are experiencing today, how realistic is this proposition?
Reminds me of complaints by newly elected Reps who said were put to work in the equivalent of pinksheet stock sellers in sweatshops dialing for dollars. (See Wolf of Wall St)
In order to get put on committees to be able to begin bringing home the back to their district.
So, yeah its all a grift.
If the Senate were subject to direction by state party that would dilute and spread out the lobbyist money. More Lambos in Rapid City, eh Sen Thune?
The 17th is not the first or primary amendment I’d like to see repealed, but maybe it’s the easiest, and that’s the point. Low hanging fruit, relatively speaking, of a very difficult and tedious process. A demonstration, as it were, that can be subsequently extended. I’m a fan of shorter and fewer laws, and I wish the founders had thought to make repealing a constitutional amendment easier than passing one.
I am loathe to call the Professor "naive," but in this argument, I think he is. States under the control of progressives will always vote to expand federal power. Repealing the 17th will not act as a brake on this. If anything, it will be an accelerant. Direct election of Senators gives us at least a few senators who defy their parties' orthodoxies. Just look at the federal judiciary. It's supposed to be immune from the vicissitudes of politics, but appointed judges, especially those appointed by Dems, have become political hacks in too many instances. Just look at the Supreme Court. We conservatives may cry at what we perceive as spinelessness or betrayal from the Chief Justice or Justice ACB, but does a progressive/leftist ever gnash his/her non-binary teeth of a Sotomayor or Kagan or Associate Justice "I don't know what a woman is"?
Gail Collins would have objected, because she was deeply unimpressed with state legislators, having covered them earlier in her career. Perhaps giving them national responsibility (the only thing many voters seem to notice) might improve their visibility and encourage the rest. (And it might reduce the trend of thinking of Senator as an entry-level position.)
Repealing the 17th is hugely anti big federal government, as you noted Glenn. AND it favors the small states over the big states. AND were it repealed today and replaced with state appointed senators, the US Senate would be 56 GOP senators, most likely, since 28 legislatures are controlled by the GOP today.
The Democrats will never support this, unfortunately. For the same reasons that the Progressives supported the 17th in the first place.
Great commentary, as always. And definitely something that all of you in substack land should read.
Yes, I have been beating this drum for years.
it would also solve some of the problems we see right now. John Thune says he's a republican, but he very obviously is not representing the State of South Dakota. But if he were appointed by the legislature, they could recall him, fire him, whatever, for pulling this crap.
Correction: The state couldn’t fire him, but the legislature and governor would have far more influence since staying Senator would depend upon their goodwill not statewide elections that little reflect how well the Senator has served the interests of the State.
No they can't. He still has a six year term subject only to the power of impeachment. That never changed and won't.
I would be more inclined to repeal the 19th amendment. Democrats would never win another election without liberal white women; specifically AWFLs. But repealing the 17th is a great idea, as our founding father never intended for any election to be by popular vote except for local representatives. At the ratification of our constitution the highest office you could vote for was your congressman. Senators were elected by the state legislatures and president by the electoral college.
Awww! Wagging my finger (like that Terminator cop) while agreeing with you.
In the late 1700s and most of the 1800s, even the House of Representatives had about 50% turnover every two years. There were a few big names who stayed in for years--John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and a few more. But most served a term or two and then left. Before the Civil War, most politicians considered it to be more important to be in their state legislature than in Congress. Even Abe Lincoln didn't serve very long in Congress--one term. He served four terms in the Illinois legislature.
If anything, the 17th Amendment made it easier for politicians to become professional, long-term occupants of their office. If the intention of the 17th Amendment was to give the people more of a voice, it seems to have actually done the opposite.
Another bad decision came from the courts--the ruling on Reynolds vs Sims (not you, Glenn) in 1964 that required states to apportion their state senate seats by population rather than allowing each county to have a state senator. The thinking was that the counties were not sovereign units like the states. But it gave control of state governments to the big cities, and we've been living with the effects of that ever since. It's a likely reason why some states are facing demands to break up or re-align--eastern Oregon would rather be part of Idaho, some counties in Illinois would rather join Indiana, western counties in Maryland would rather be part of WV, some proposals to split California into 4 or 5 states because of regional differences.
Yes! It would also be a big help with Congressional reapportionment. (And make my state more livable)
Lincoln left Congress solely because of an agreement worked out with two other local Whigs to rotate terms.
Agree totally about Reynolds vs. Sims! And Baker vs. Carr as well….
Go back to geographic representation at the state level for state senates.
Fascinating idea. We are living in times when big things are being debated. Conservatives should participate with big ideas of their own rather than act like the rear guard of a retreating army. If Communism is busy capturing the Democratic Party, we should take the opportunity to counterattack. Repealing the 17th Amendment is certainly a big enough idea to make the country rethink where it is and where it's going. And then the Sixteenth should appeal to almost everybody. Believe it or not, the people paying little in taxes are almost always the ones who hate it most because it hurts them most. And don't get me started on the 19th.
Could not agree more.
Counterattack, counterattack, counterattack!
A few things.
1. The Lincoln Douglas race of 1858 was very much a race as the candidates were pre-nominated by their parties and spent the fall debating each other over slavery. Under the 17th Lincoln would have been elected but because of distracting, Democrats maintained control of the legislature and returned Douglas to office.
2. In theory I support legislative election of senators as this was important to the Constitutional scheme. But there is no reason to believe modern legislatures are any more worthy than voters of electing decent candidates who would take seriously, the interests of the public.
3. Democrats are about a hair away from demanding the end of the Senate itself as a violation of democracy just as they have the electoral college.
I would note, the Senators would not be required to worry about the interests of the public. They would be representing the interests of the States.
The interest of a state is the interests of the citizens of that state. Back when the Constitution was written, it was assumed that the states stood for the people. The difference with the House is that each member serves only a small district and is therefore more responsible and of course the House gives proportionate representation based on size. Today the members of state legislatures are just as driven by the broken national politics as the members of Congress are and anyone they choose would serve the national interests of the party not the people of their state as intended.
I’m sorry, that is not at all why it was written. In fact, it is actually quite contrary to the concerns of those debating the document way back when. The Founders were terrified of too much power being concentrated in any one body, and they were extremely fearful of a pure democracy, which they thought, rightly, would lead to mob rule.
The entire foundation of the Constitution is diffusing power among competing interests in order to make it difficult for power to accumulate in any one area. As each interest fought for their priorities, if too extreme the other powers would block it, leading to only action being taken which had a general agreement across many interests. The Legislature to balance the interests of the people and the interests of the individual states as political actors. Of course, the individual states had legislatures subject to the voters of their state, who would have interest in the selection of their Senator as well as the issues pertaining to that State.
What you say is largely true which is why the Constitution ended up written the way it was and why we we have a federal system based on diffusion of power. It is a fact, however, that the weakness of the national government under the Articles of Confederation WAS the reason for the calling of the Constitutional Convention. The delegates understood that a stronger government was needed. The fight was over how strong and the compromise reflected that debate.
Yes, actually they came together to amend the articles and ended up just throwing them to the curb and starting over.
And what I said was not largely true - it was completely true. Yes, there were huge questions that were argued over and it was a close thing all the way. There was a huge dynamic about big state and small state which was another reason for the senate being structured as it ended up being structured. And why the president is not elected by a popular vote.
Who is saying otherwise? All I said was that the convention was called because everyone recognized that under the current system, the 13 states were not strong enough to survive. The fact that we ended up with an incredibly uniquely structured but strong ferderalized system of state and federal governments united under a strong constitution that difuses power in various ways was a result of the serendipidy of necessary compromise and the work of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.
Just as important as repeal of the 17th Amendment would be an amendment which would allow state legislatures to apportion their upper houses geographically, they way the US Senate does and the way the state legislatures were all (except unicameral Nebraska) apportioned before Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) and its progeny - which were probably actually more harmful to responsible state government than the 17th Amendment was to the federal government.
Yes!
I would argue the Constitution guarantees a republican form of government to the states, and Baker v Carr and Reynolds v Sims override that.
I've been a supporter of 17A repeal for over a decade. I'm glad to see the idea becoming more mainstream, and for the right reasons.
Repealing the 17th Amendment has campaign finance reform built in, if it were to pass, any "major donor" to a senator/candidate and/or to a RNSC/DNSC would have their power greatly diminished. I believe that it would cease to be a recipient of such campaign largesse. It would also diminish senate majority/minority leader's ability to strong-arm senators into voting against their state's, national interest items.
Antonin Scalia called for repeal of the 17th amendment during an appearance with Stephen Bryer at Texas Tech Law School back in 2010. Given the political atomization we are experiencing today, how realistic is this proposition?
Hmm. Very perceptive.
Reminds me of complaints by newly elected Reps who said were put to work in the equivalent of pinksheet stock sellers in sweatshops dialing for dollars. (See Wolf of Wall St)
In order to get put on committees to be able to begin bringing home the back to their district.
So, yeah its all a grift.
If the Senate were subject to direction by state party that would dilute and spread out the lobbyist money. More Lambos in Rapid City, eh Sen Thune?
The 17th is not the first or primary amendment I’d like to see repealed, but maybe it’s the easiest, and that’s the point. Low hanging fruit, relatively speaking, of a very difficult and tedious process. A demonstration, as it were, that can be subsequently extended. I’m a fan of shorter and fewer laws, and I wish the founders had thought to make repealing a constitutional amendment easier than passing one.
Yes, yes, yes.
Not just yes but OH HELL YES!
Totally agree with our esteemed host. State legislatures have their own set of fools running things but at least they're local fools.
I am loathe to call the Professor "naive," but in this argument, I think he is. States under the control of progressives will always vote to expand federal power. Repealing the 17th will not act as a brake on this. If anything, it will be an accelerant. Direct election of Senators gives us at least a few senators who defy their parties' orthodoxies. Just look at the federal judiciary. It's supposed to be immune from the vicissitudes of politics, but appointed judges, especially those appointed by Dems, have become political hacks in too many instances. Just look at the Supreme Court. We conservatives may cry at what we perceive as spinelessness or betrayal from the Chief Justice or Justice ACB, but does a progressive/leftist ever gnash his/her non-binary teeth of a Sotomayor or Kagan or Associate Justice "I don't know what a woman is"?
If Congress passed the amendment by majority vote, it could be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Unlikely but not unthinkable.
Gail Collins would have objected, because she was deeply unimpressed with state legislators, having covered them earlier in her career. Perhaps giving them national responsibility (the only thing many voters seem to notice) might improve their visibility and encourage the rest. (And it might reduce the trend of thinking of Senator as an entry-level position.)