(Thanks very much to everyone here for your patience while I heal. I appreciate it.)
Today’s submission comes from Bill Corish.
*********************************************
Thank you, Myr, for your occasional comments on this topic. They inspired me to write this piece…
The 17th Amendment to the Constitution was a serious mistake and should be repealed!
(Notes to the Reader:
- Much more can be written calling for repeal of the 17th Amendment, but I promised Clete I’d work something up more than 4 months ago. Though I’ve been swamped with work and personal matters for a long time, and I’m still busy, my excuses were getting lame. This article does not mention, much less flesh out, all reasons for repealing the 17th. Additional compelling arguments exist. This piece only discusses those which have come to my mind over the years. Besides, this article is primarily intended to start a discussion.
- There are a couple things which strongly influence my opinion for repealing the 17th:
- I am diametrically opposed to Obamacare. It is the main reason I see Obama as the worst U.S. president in my adult lifetime (yes, Biden stinks but I’m of the school which views Joe as Barak 2.0).
- I’m a member of my county’s Republican Committee, I take our State party creed seriously and I think most Republicans do as well.)
The 17th Amendment eroded the federal nature of our Republic, moving it toward a more democratic structure. I prefer to focus my attention and resources on electing the people who represent my town, county or State legislative districts. It is much easier to interact one-on-one with these individuals, in my experience. I’d rather my State legislature selected Virginia’s U.S. Senators, particularly if we focus on getting Republicans in control of that body.
Without the distraction of U.S. Senate elections, citizens would focus more on their Congressional House races. I see that as a good thing. Most of us have lives to live and other things to spend our time and resources on. Repealing the 17th means less fundraising needed for races at the federal level. Citizens’ donations of money and time would be more focused at the local and district levels, as they should be.
I believe that even the legislatures of States which are dominated by Democrats would tend to put forth less socialist / progressive Senators. I’m persuaded they would select Senators who would be more inclined to guard their State’s and their residents’ rights. Yes, this would be a marginal inclination. But we’re at war with the socialists. Any advantage, no matter how slight, is to be pursued.
Below is the creed of the Republican Party of Virginia:
We Believe
- That the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice
- That all individuals are entitled to equal rights, justice, and opportunities and should assume their responsibilities as citizens in a free society
- That fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints must be exercised at all levels of government
- That the Federal Government must preserve individual liberty by observing Constitutional limitations
- That peace is best preserved through a strong national defense
- That faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers is essential to the moral fiber of the Nation
There is no guarantee that repel of the 17th Amendment would result in our republican beliefs coming to dominate Virginia’s civil society, or that of any other state. But I am confident the likelihood of this outcome is improved when focused more locally and in-person. Again, any advantage no matter how slight…
The U.S. Senate passed Obamacare on December 24, 2009. I developed an Excel spreadsheet to estimate the partisan makeup of the Senate on that day, had the 17th not been adopted. My calculation assumes the party in control of each state legislature would send someone of their party to the federal senate. In those instances when one party did not have a majority in both houses of their state legislature:
- If Republicans controlled one house and Democrats controlled the other, the senator is selected by the party of the governor.
- If one house was split evenly amongst both parties and the other was not, the senator is selected by the party in control of one house.
On this basis, there would have been at least 47 Republicans in the Senate. Nowhere near the filibuster-proof majority the Democrats enjoyed on that infamous day.
Ergo, no Obamacare!
Caveats:
- It’s possible the Democrats would have changed Senate rules to pass the measure. Socialized medicine is a holy grail of theirs. But I tend to doubt they would go that far. Also, my calculation puts Democrats in both Senate seats for Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Tennessee. Each State has had Republican senators in both seats going back to at least 1996. I’m persuaded that the Democrats holding those State legislatures in the 2004 – 2008 period (when they would have selected U.S. Senators) were more of the “Blue Dog” brand. Many, if not most, would be unlikely to select someone who would have supported Obamacare.
- Some state legislatures began selecting senators based on an “advisory” vote by their electorates prior to passage of the 17th. I think most states would have turned away from this process (perhaps after toying with it for a spell) and it would have turned out to be just another populist dalliance that fizzled out. But I’m assuming my desire to focus attention on fewer elections is favored by most Americans and would eventually end this fad. I could be wrong.
The second caveat above begs the question; why amend the U.S. Constitution to impose this on every state? Why not just let it grow organically state by state, if it really was the will of most Americans?
I gather the primary reasons given by those pushing the 17th were state legislative corruption and electoral deadlocks.
For the corruption charge to make sense, one must agree the original process was significantly more corrupt than that associated with the current popular vote of Senators. I’ve yet to find a serious argument supporting this position.
There were temporary legislature deadlocks in selecting Senators, particularly among the newly admitted western States. In a few instances, these deadlocks resulted in a temporary, general legislative paralysis in the state. Perish the thought…
Side Note:
I’m nowhere near an expert on the filibuster, but I did a little research on its history in preparation for this article. Namely, the Senate web site (https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture.htm).
I can’t help but think this page is purposely set up to virtue signal for the majority Democrats:
- The page doesn’t note that the “southern senators” who used the filibuster to block anti-lynching laws were entirely members of one party.
- The senators who valiantly engaged in “righteous” filibusters (Robert La Follette, Huey Long, Wayne Morse) were all Democrats or progressives. The one “bad guy move” was Strom Thurmond’s record filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. This is interesting in that, if a person does only a casual google, he will probably see Thurmond listed as a Republican. If you dig, you’ll learn he was a Democrat before 1964. But how many people will take the trouble?
This web page looks carefully word-smithed to target the proverbial low-info voters to reinforce the “truism” that D’s are all good and R’s are all racists (Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, FDR’s encampment of Japanese American’s, Dems’ enactment of government dependency programs targeting minorities, DEI initiatives, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, notwithstanding.) Someone should perform a study of the entire Senate web site to see how much more of this taxpayer-funded propaganda resides there. May as well review all the executive branch sites, for that matter.
Below is a printout of my Obamacare spreadsheet. I’m happy to share the native Excel file with anyone who is interested. (EDITOR’S NOTE: The spreadsheet is wider than the page, so use the slider at the bottom to see the entire spreadsheet)
| Senate passed Obamacare: 12/24/2009 | |||||||||||
| Party in Control of Legislature (see notes at bottom of sheet) | Party of U.S. Senator Selected Based on Party in Control | Bicameral legislature split? | Republican Governor? (yes/no) | Republican Selected? (1 = yes, 0 = no) | |||||||
| State | Year U.S. Senator Elected | On Election Day | After Seating Those Elected | On Election Day | After Seating Those Elected | On Election Day | After Seating Those Elected | On Election Day | After Seating Those Elected | Notes | |
| AK | 2008 | R | R | R | R | yes | yes | yes | 1 | 1 | |
| 2004 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | |||||
| AL | 2008 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | Both senators GOP since 1996. | |||
| 2004 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | Both senators GOP since 1996. | ||||
| AR | 2008 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | ||||
| 2004 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | |||||
| AZ | 2006 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 2004 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | |||||
| CA | 2006 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | ||||
| 2004 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | |||||
| CO | 2008 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | ||||
| 2004 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | |||||
| CT | 2006 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | ||||
| 2004 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | |||||
| DE | 2008 | D | D | D | D | yes | no | no | 0 | 0 | |
| 2006 | D | D | D | D | yes | no | no | 0 | 0 | ||
| FL | 2006 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 2004 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | |||||
| GA | 2008 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 2004 | R | R | R | R | yes | yes | yes | 1 | 1 | ||
| HI | 2006 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | ||||
| 2004 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | |||||
| IA | 2008 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | ||||
| 2006 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | |||||
| ID | 2008 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 2004 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | |||||
| IL | 2008 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | ||||
| 2004 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | |||||
| IN | 2006 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 2004 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | |||||
| KS | 2008 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 2004 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | |||||
| KY | 2008 | R | D | R | D | 1 | 0 | Both senators GOP since 1996. | |||
| 2004 | D | R | D | R | yes | no | yes | 0 | 1 | Both senators GOP since 1996. | |
| LA | 2008 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | ||||
| 2004 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | |||||
| MA | 2006 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | ||||
| 2008 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | |||||
| MD | 2006 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | ||||
| 2004 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | |||||
| ME | 2008 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | ||||
| 2006 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | |||||
| MI | 2008 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | ||||
| 2006 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | |||||
| MN | 2008 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | ||||
| 2006 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | |||||
| MO | 2006 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 2004 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | |||||
| MS | 2008 | R | D | R | D | 1 | 0 | Both senators GOP since 1989. | |||
| 2006 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | Both senators GOP since 1989. | ||||
| MT | 2008 | D | D | D | D | yes | no | no | 0 | 0 | |
| 2006 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | |||||
| NC | 2008 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | ||||
| 2004 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | |||||
| ND | 2004 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 2008 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | |||||
| NE | 2008 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 2006 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | |||||
| NH | 2008 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | ||||
| 2004 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | |||||
| NJ | 2008 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | ||||
| 2006 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | |||||
| NM | 2008 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | ||||
| 2006 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | |||||
| NV | 2006 | R | R | R | R | yes | yes | yes | 1 | 1 | |
| 2004 | R | R | R | R | yes | yes | yes | 1 | 1 | ||
| NY | 2006 | R | R | R | R | yes | yes | yes | 1 | 1 | |
| 2004 | R | R | R | R | yes | yes | yes | 1 | 1 | ||
| OH | 2006 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 2004 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | |||||
| OK | 2008 | D | D | D | D | yes | no | no | 0 | 0 | Both senators GOP since 1994. |
| 2004 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | Both senators GOP since 1994. | ||||
| OR | 2004 | R | D | R | D | yes | no | no | 1 | 0 | |
| 2008 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | |||||
| PA | 2006 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 2004 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | |||||
| RI | 2008 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | ||||
| 2006 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | |||||
| SC | 2008 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 2004 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | |||||
| SD | 2008 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 2004 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | |||||
| TN | 2008 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | Both senators GOP since 1995. | |||
| 2006 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | Both senators GOP since 1995. | ||||
| TX | 2008 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 2006 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | |||||
| UT | 2006 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 2004 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | |||||
| VA | 2008 | R | D | R | D | 1 | 0 | ||||
| 2006 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | |||||
| VT | 2006 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | ||||
| 2004 | R | R | R | R | yes | yes | yes | 1 | 1 | ||
| WA | 2006 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | ||||
| 2004 | D | D | D | D | yes | no | no | 0 | 0 | ||
| WI | 2006 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 2004 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | |||||
| WV | 2008 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | ||||
| 2006 | D | D | D | D | 0 | 0 | |||||
| WY | 2008 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 2006 | R | R | R | R | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Number of Republican Senators | 50 | 47 | |||||||||
| NO OBAMACARE | NO OBAMACARE | Assuming Democrats didn’t change filibuster rules | |||||||||
