waxing polemical
To see how much interests there are in politics, I've created a Yahoo! Group called Repeal the 17th Amendment. I'm betting that no one will join, but the most interesting thing would be that Zell Miller, whom some consider a Democrat-in-name-only, introduced a legislative amendment bill to repeal that law.
What is the 17th Amendment?
The 17th Amendment grew out of the Progressive Movement that wanted to get rid of the corruption in the various state legislatures in the early 20th century. More information can be found in the reliable Wikipedia article. The amendment took away the power of the state legislators to select senators and gave it to the people.
It sounded like an excellent populist idea, but that lead to an unintended consequence, senators are now more distanced from the people they represent. You are more likely to meet your US Representative and more likely to meet your state legislator, than to meet your senator. The 17th Amendment lowered the importance of the state legislature, prevented the state from checking and balancing the growth of the federal government.
Moreover, it becomes difficult for any third party to establish its prominence, whether Green, Libertarian, or American Independent. The last great third party, before Ross Perot, was Theodore Roosevelt's third attempted run to replace Taft. We have a two-party system, throttling between D and R, because the 17th Amendment makes it worthless to run for office in the state government, which before the 17th Amendment would have been the most plausible way to change the makeup of the US Senate.
For now, it is not easy to boot a senator because once in office, he or she commands an incumbent's privilege, along with lobbyists eager to gain favors of one already in power. The voters in each state cannot find it in their interests or time to be aware of other candidates also running for office, and a senatorial candidate would be hard-pressed to try to handshake and influence the constituents that number in the millions (i.e. California, New York, Texas, and all the rest).
If we had state legislature choosing the senators, the people would merely write and connect with their state legislator, who would be more able to meet with them.
The general trend appears to be that America is assimilating and mainstreaming into one homogeneous whole. The move away from local variety, probably most symbolized by an expanding federal government unwilling to cut its war-time spending after World War II (all those war-time industries switched making fertilizers and pesticides, among other things, for corn that we consume, including high-fructose corn syrup, xanthan gum, and artificial sugar) and the construction of the Interstate Highway that permitted foods to be transported from Georgia to California. The ability to mass-produce and to mass-transport means that it is in the interest of corporations to capitalize on the most-producing asset with the least amount of externalities -- we are then reduced to consuming one variety of corn, one variety of tomato, one homogeneous species for all. Such monocultural crops increases vulnerability to pests and fungal diseases, requiring that we use more and more pesticides, including DDT, to deal with the threats.
The Organic Food movement, the Slow-Food Movement, the Animal-Rights Movement, grew in response to recognization that they are unable to influence a federal government that seems more and more beholden to lobbyists and corporations.
Sometimes, laws have been passed (or enforced) that are beneficial, either for the country or for the ideals of that country: The Civil Rights Act, The Americans with Disabilities Act, and many other things that probably would never be implemented in some states. I don't know if having state legislatures choose the senators would have resulted in the same things.
What I do want is to move attention away from the US Government to focusing on the state and local regions.
At this point, it is unlikely that the US Senate would ever agree to submit to the will of the state legislators to pass a bill for the states' ratification. The only viable method for repealing the 17th Amendment is to utilize a provision in the US Constitution that has never been used in our history, allowing individual states to form a Convention to propose an amendment to be ratified by 3/4 of states.
What is the 17th Amendment?
The 17th Amendment grew out of the Progressive Movement that wanted to get rid of the corruption in the various state legislatures in the early 20th century. More information can be found in the reliable Wikipedia article. The amendment took away the power of the state legislators to select senators and gave it to the people.
It sounded like an excellent populist idea, but that lead to an unintended consequence, senators are now more distanced from the people they represent. You are more likely to meet your US Representative and more likely to meet your state legislator, than to meet your senator. The 17th Amendment lowered the importance of the state legislature, prevented the state from checking and balancing the growth of the federal government.
Moreover, it becomes difficult for any third party to establish its prominence, whether Green, Libertarian, or American Independent. The last great third party, before Ross Perot, was Theodore Roosevelt's third attempted run to replace Taft. We have a two-party system, throttling between D and R, because the 17th Amendment makes it worthless to run for office in the state government, which before the 17th Amendment would have been the most plausible way to change the makeup of the US Senate.
For now, it is not easy to boot a senator because once in office, he or she commands an incumbent's privilege, along with lobbyists eager to gain favors of one already in power. The voters in each state cannot find it in their interests or time to be aware of other candidates also running for office, and a senatorial candidate would be hard-pressed to try to handshake and influence the constituents that number in the millions (i.e. California, New York, Texas, and all the rest).
If we had state legislature choosing the senators, the people would merely write and connect with their state legislator, who would be more able to meet with them.
The general trend appears to be that America is assimilating and mainstreaming into one homogeneous whole. The move away from local variety, probably most symbolized by an expanding federal government unwilling to cut its war-time spending after World War II (all those war-time industries switched making fertilizers and pesticides, among other things, for corn that we consume, including high-fructose corn syrup, xanthan gum, and artificial sugar) and the construction of the Interstate Highway that permitted foods to be transported from Georgia to California. The ability to mass-produce and to mass-transport means that it is in the interest of corporations to capitalize on the most-producing asset with the least amount of externalities -- we are then reduced to consuming one variety of corn, one variety of tomato, one homogeneous species for all. Such monocultural crops increases vulnerability to pests and fungal diseases, requiring that we use more and more pesticides, including DDT, to deal with the threats.
The Organic Food movement, the Slow-Food Movement, the Animal-Rights Movement, grew in response to recognization that they are unable to influence a federal government that seems more and more beholden to lobbyists and corporations.
Sometimes, laws have been passed (or enforced) that are beneficial, either for the country or for the ideals of that country: The Civil Rights Act, The Americans with Disabilities Act, and many other things that probably would never be implemented in some states. I don't know if having state legislatures choose the senators would have resulted in the same things.
What I do want is to move attention away from the US Government to focusing on the state and local regions.
At this point, it is unlikely that the US Senate would ever agree to submit to the will of the state legislators to pass a bill for the states' ratification. The only viable method for repealing the 17th Amendment is to utilize a provision in the US Constitution that has never been used in our history, allowing individual states to form a Convention to propose an amendment to be ratified by 3/4 of states.
posted by Alan at February 22, 2007
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home