Spring 07
Clause 1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
Clause 2. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
Clause 3. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution (Popular Election of Senators).
The seventeenth amendment has been the topic of much controversy among political scientists and other scholars since before its adoption in, 1913. Some in the field feel that the amendment has not accomplished what it was intended to in order to merit the adoption as righteous. On the other hand, there are some who feel that even though the amendment did not accomplish everything it had intended to, it was justified because it did correct some of the major issues that needed to be rectified. The philosophy behind the seventeenth amendment is not the problem. The problem occurs in areas that could be taken care of in ways besides repealing the seventeenth amendment. Therefore, the adoption of the seventeenth amendment was justified and necessary for progress.
The idea of direct election of senators has been around since the constitutional convention. In fact, when several members of the constitutional convention expressed their views on how the Senators should be elected there was one man, Wilson, who was an advocate of the direct election of senators (Babich, 8 and 13). The convention, however, went with another theory, one in which the states elected their senators. Two main reasons that this method was chosen were: this means of electing senators would make the states become interesting in supporting the national government and that the relationship between the states and the national government would become more evident (Babich, 10-11).
As time passed the people of the United States saw problems with the way Senators were elected. In, 1892, Senator Palmer of Illinois, made a speech in favor of the popular election of senators. He boasted that the way that senators were elected was no longer satisfactory to the American people because the trust for the government by the people had diminished exponentially (Babich, 39). By the time that, 1893, came there was a proposition to change the way senators were elected; however, the Senate adamantly opposed the propositions of change (Direct Election of Senators). Soon influential figures began to express their opinions on the growing public concern on the election of senators. President Andrew Johnson was an advocate of the popular election of senators and he would go on to say that, “Experience seems to have established the necessity of an amendment of the clause of the Constitution which proved for the election of Senators to Congress by the several states. It would be more consistent with the genius of the government if the Senators were chosen directly by the people of the states” (Babich, 32 and 33). By, 1911, it was apparent that the opposition to an amendment would give way and at least fifteen state legislatures requested that an amendment for the popular election of senators be put under way (Babich, 48-49 and 62). One year later, before the amendments adoption, at least 29 States were nominating their Senators on a popular basis (U.S. Constitution: Seventeenth Amendment). Finally, in May of 1913, the new (seventeenth) amendment was declared part of the constitution (Babich, 70).
Along with the new amendment came new concerns and frustrations in conjunction with the exaggeration of the old concerns and frustrations. Some of the issues that the seventeenth amendment was meant to cure got significantly worse or went untouched by the change. The range of these issues is vast. They range from bribery scandals, to electoral deadlocks, to mal-apportioned legislatures, to a shifting in political views (Waleeman).
Factions, also known as special interest groups, have been a major concern in American history and according to some, there are a very limited number of things one can do to prevent them. There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects (The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. The Federalist Papers: No. 10). One great way of doing so is to divide the legislature into different branches and then to make these different branches of government as little connected with each other as their dependency can allow via different modes of election and different principles of action (The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. The Federalist Papers: No. 51). Doing this would ensure that whatever action was taken was for the greatest public good (Dean). Some would say that the way the system was designed protected federalism and ensured that factions would have an extremely hard time influencing the government (Dean). The Senate was designed to protect the people from their own whims because the instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished (The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. The Federalist Papers: No. 10). The Senate was “a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions,” as James Madison once said (Dean).
In the constitutional convention Gerry of Massachusetts was afraid to let people directly elect senators, as Wilson had proposed, because he felt that if both houses were to be composed of elected people that it would leave no security against commercial/special interests (Babich, 13-14). Others agreed with Gerry saying, “…different modes of representation in the different branches, will serve as a mutual check” (Babich, 11-12). While this was true, the system did not allow for a pure democracy, nor did it bend to the public whim. It did, however, have its flaws. In the period of, 1866 and 1906, nine cases of bribery were brought before the Senate and there were 45 deadlocks for Senator seats in twenty different states (Direct Election of Senators). These deadlocks were of particular interest because it often meant that a state was represented in the Senate by one person and therefore no longer had an equal vote in the Senate. The Lincoln – Douglas senatorial campaign exemplified how the state legislatures were incapable of electing senators without outside influences (Babich, 36). So, even though the system had its checks and balances, special interest groups were still penetrating the system.
Many believed that one of the things that the seventeenth amendment would accomplish would be that it would stamp out the undue influence of special interests in the Senate (Hoebeke). While no one can attest to the stamping out of special interest groups some believe that the seventeenth amendment was actually propelled by them. Their reasons is as follows: special interest groups were prominent backers of the seventeenth amendment because they hoped that direct election of senators would increase their control since they could then appeal to the electorate and provide them with political fuel - aka money (Hoebeke). These people also believe that since the Senate endorsed the amendment and then all of the incumbents nominated went on to win the popular election of, 1914, they can not see what special interest group were thwarted by the change (Hoebeke). A modern example is that of how corporations, such as Enron, finance political campaigns for certain senators presumably in exchange for vote in a given direction (Why repeal 17th?).
The Constitution was set up so that the Senate was to be a check on Congress. They were to prevent Congress from buying votes - among many things; however, since the passage of the seventeenth amendment, Senators must run election campaigns. Thus, they have been essentially buying votes and therefore have become part of the problem that they were supposed to check (Why repeal 17th?). In fact, the seventeenth amendment (scholars ascertain) eliminated the checks and balances available to the states over Congress (Federalism).
Some feared that along with the new system of the direct election of Senators, the character of the Senate itself would be compromised (Babich, 43). While the character of the Senate did change in many regards; it did not in others. For instance, the Senate has maintained its distance from the House of Representatives and its distinction as the upper house (Foley). The Senate has not lost its influence nor its power in the legislature do to the passage of the seventeenth amendment, as many of the people opposed to the amendment argued (Babich, 86). The seventeenth amendment, in hindsight, did increase the role of the federal government by fundamentally ending the state legislative role on the national level (Federalism). For instance, prior to the passage of the amendment, Senators would discuss federal affairs with their state legislatures on a regular basis but after the passage of it they ceased to discuss almost anything with their legislature (Why repeal 17th?). The passage of the amendment did allow the Senate to reflect the public opinion much more easily and rapidly than previously (Babich, 91). This is up to debate as to whether or not this is beneficial to the legislature. Some scholars believe that it is not beneficial to the legislature because it allows for special interest groups to sway opinions and for certain events to push decisions which otherwise would be rash or unwise. Others believe that it has not affected the government in a profound enough way to give it enough thought as to whether or not it matters.
While the voices that needed and wanted the amendment to come to term were obviously overwhelming, there are still those who want the seventeenth amendment to be repealed for various reasons. One man’s thought on the subject was that there were two main reasons to repeal the seventeenth amendment: campaign finance reform and to protect state’s rights (Why repeal 17th?). Indeed, repealing the seventeenth amendment could appeal to several groups of people. To modern conservatives it would be a return to the way that the government was intended and for modern progressives it would be a diffusion of power which would interject in the freedom and flexibility of special interest groups, it would also be a solution to campaign reform (Dean). Perhaps though, the amendment is not the primary cause of the Senate’s problems but it may have just been unable to reach its expectations (Hoebeke). The seventeenth amendment has, however, lived up to one expectation without a doubt. The States now spend their time considering state issues and if they become deadlocked it is a state matter, not a national dilemma (Babich, 91). According to Babich, “Had there been no other gain than this, the adoption of the seventeenth amendment would be amply justified” (91).
Obviously, several scholars feel that the justification of the seventeenth amendment is debatable. It is not debatable, however, that the issue of the direct election of senators has been a growing issue since the constitutional convention and thus could be said that the amendment was inevitable. Once the progressive era in the United States came, there was so much distrust and corruption in the system that the American people felt that they needed a change. The direct election of senators seemed to be the only way to eliminate many of their issues. Today, there are issues that were created or exaggerated by the seventeenth amendment. None of these issues are insurmountable though.
In regards to the extravagant amount of money spent on campaigns, committees and politicians are working and pushing for campaign finance reform. If these efforts are realized then it will not only take pressure off of the growing price of being in public office but also the influence that special interest groups, who often fund campaigns, will have. Special interest groups could also be foiled if they were simply prohibited to finance events of national interest, or to go a step further, if they were prohibited from lobbying.
The issue of States’ rights is more complex. Yes, they are no longer directly represented via Senators anymore, but often now the job of the National Government and the State Government are intertwined. This meshing of power makes it nearly impossible for any state to be trampled upon. This can be exemplified by looking at the diversity of each state - a tangible example is the comparison of the progressive and liberal lifestyle of California and the traditionally conservative lifestyle of Wisconsin. While this may be a crude example it shows how each state is allowed to make its own laws and follow its own interests while still being under the National Government. Therefore, one may conclude that while the seventeenth amendment did not come with all positive effects, it was justified in its adoption.
Bibliography
Appointed Senators. 25 Mar. 2007
Babich, Peter. Senatorial Elections Before and After the Passage of the Seventeenth
Amendment. Gainesville: University of Florida, 1934.
Dean, John W. “THE SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT: SHOULD IT BE REPEALED? Why
The Direct Election Of Senators May Have Been A Serious Mistake, And One That Helps Explain The Supreme Court's States' Rights Views.” Find Laws Writ. 13 Sep. 2002. 28 Feb. 2007 <http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20020913.html>.
Direct Election of Senators. 21 Mar. 2007
Foley, Michael. The New Senate. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1980.
Hoebeke C.H. “Democratizing the Constitution: The Failure of the Seventeenth Amendment.”
From Humanitas, Vol. IX, No. 2, 1996. National Humanities Institute, Washington, D.C. USA. 20 Feb. 2007 <www.nhunet.org/hoebeke.htm>.
Popular Election of Senators. 20 Mar. 2007
The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. The Federalist Papers: No. 10. 15 Mar. 2007
The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. The Federalist Papers: No. 51. 15 Mar. 2007
U.S. Constitution: Seventeenth Amendment. 3 Mar. 2007
Waleeman, Raffaela. United States Senate Elections before 1914. 3 March 2007
Why repeal 17th? 25 March 2007
< http://www.liberty-ca.org/repeal17/states/montana2003oneil.htm>.
No comments:
Post a Comment