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 AND were it repealed today and replaced with state appointed senators, the US Senate would be 56 GOP senators, most likely, since 28 legislatures are controlled by the GOP today.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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
"And the need to be asking for money 24/7 demonstrably discourages otherwise qualified people from seeking office."
Not to mention diverting the Senator's creative thinking away from governance, which should be first in line, and the resulting legislation, thus reducing his value to his constituents and his country.
Perfesser - Welcome to the party, pal. There has long been a movement, however small, for the repeal of the 17th once it become clear that it further emasculated the States.
Thanks for bringing the idea to your wide audience.
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.
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.
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.
Agree totally about Reynolds vs. Sims! And Baker vs. Carr as well….
Go back to geographic representation at the state level for state senates.
Lincoln left Congress solely because of an agreement worked out with two other local Whigs to rotate terms.
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!
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.
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!
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?
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.
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?
Yes, yes, yes.
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.
Not just yes but OH HELL YES!
Repeal the 16th??? How will we ever pay for World War I...
"And the need to be asking for money 24/7 demonstrably discourages otherwise qualified people from seeking office."
Not to mention diverting the Senator's creative thinking away from governance, which should be first in line, and the resulting legislation, thus reducing his value to his constituents and his country.
Perfesser - Welcome to the party, pal. There has long been a movement, however small, for the repeal of the 17th once it become clear that it further emasculated the States.
Thanks for bringing the idea to your wide audience.