Why Do We Need 2 Senators To Represent Each State? (McCain, lawyers, Brown)

[mkpunk]

I don't know why we want to go back to the states picking the Senators to the US Senate. That's asking for cronyism and spoils, the populists of the early 1900's had it right by fighting to amend the Senate selection process section of the U.S. Constitution. It eliminates corruption.

[earthlyfather]

Of course Senators cast their own vote. It was the very threat and sometimes action of recall that ensured they were representing a state's interest, and not their own or some other party's interest. It slowed the legislative process, as intended.

Otherwise, why repeal, (17th Amendment), appointment by the respective state legislatures,? Even the premises used to pass and get ratified the 17th have proved bogus, for more than 100 years. Get rid of gridlock, eliminate corruption by special interests and so on. Some success.

The fail is that it is exactly the representation of the respective states interest only accomplished by the states appointing their representatives - that provided the subsequent legislative checks and balances, (the states interest and the peoples interest), within a framework of checks and balances, (legislative, executive, judicial) - that the founders envisioned and compromised on in order to get a more cohesive whole. A double system of checks and balances resulted; one within the legislative branch and one among the three branches of government.

You are describing the process here to reach the compromise, not the actual result, that became explicit in the Constitution. Which was overturned by the passage of and ratification of the 17th. A travesty perpetrated by the political process to this day.

Originally Posted by djmilf

So much fail on this thread. The Senate, as originally designed, by the Federalists was never intended for the Senators to be agents of the state governments.

Consider the delegates sent by the states to the Congress under the Articles of Confederation. These delegates were elected by each of the various state governments, paid by each of the various state governments, and could be immediately recalled by the state governments that originally sent them to Congress. There was no age requirement for being a delegate - it was the concern of each state who was sent to Congress and not any concern of anyone else. There was no limitation on how many delegates a state could send, as each state delegation had only one vote - each state had one and only one voice in the Continental Congress.

Now compare this to the original Virginia Plan put forth by James Madison. Each state was to send multiple senators to the Senate, and each senator cast an individual vote. If a senator was to act as an agent of the state government, then why allow each senator his own vote? Each senator sent to the federal legislature was paid by the federal government and not by the state governments; this was to ensure that the senators would be free of any influence from the state governments - no senator could be coerced into compliance by a state which withheld his paycheck. Once a state legislature elected a senator, that legislature could never recall that senator - for the next six years each senator was completely free of the state legislature; a sitting senator could only be removed by the Senate chamber. The reason for selection of senators by each state's legislature was to remove democratic influence from the Senate, senators were to be selected by their peers, successful men of each state, not by manual laborers, shop keepers, and mechanics. Finally, in the original Virginia Plan, the number of senators was to be weighted by the population of each state - Virginia would be allowed to have many more senators than Rhode Island.

So what happened? Constitutional Convention delegates from the smaller states balked at proportional representation in both chambers of the federal legislature and demanded that all states be allowed the exact same number of senators and congressmen in both the House and the Senate. In order to prevent a complete breakdown of the Constitution Convention, the Connecticut Compromise was finally accepted, allowing for proportional representation in the House but equal representation in the Senate. But please note: all other factors which made a senator un-beholden to his state legislature remained - a senator cast his own vote instead of caucusing with the other senator elected from his state, a senator was paid by the federal government, had to be at least 30 years of age and a citizen for at least 9 years, and could never be recalled by the state legislature which sent him to Congress originally.

To understand why the Senate was comprised of men (and eventually women) who, except for their elections, were free from state control, consider what the Senate represented to the Federalists. In the mind of any gentleman of classical liberal education and member of the Enlightenment movement, the danger of any republican form of government was that it would eventually become either tyrannical despotism or mob anarchy. Classic liberals pointed to the British Parliament's House of Lords as a regulator between the potential of mob anarchy from the House of Commons and the potential of tyranny from the British monarch. A chamber of wealthy men, freed by their wealth from daily concerns and political faction, could act as a regulator against both anarchy and tyranny. Americans so believed in this concept that their colonial governments had governor's councils that stood between the popularly elected colonial assemblies and the crown appointed governors. in 1776, when the colonies became states, their constitutions established bicameral legislatures for this exact reason.

To sum up, the original reason for the Senate was not to allow each state direct representation in the federal government, but rather to establish a separate legislative chamber, comprised of established and respected men from each state, selected to a deliberative body which had a longer term of office than either a congressman or a president, whose members could not be removed by either state or federal governments (except that the Senate was allowed to expel its own members, at its own discretion). This chamber was to act as check against the passions of the House of Representative and against the power of the Presidency. The Senate is the only part of the legislature that approves presidential appointees, that approves treaties with foreign nations, and which has the sole power to remove the president from office, upon impeachment by the House of Representatives.

The United States Senate is not a chamber of agents working on behalf of state governments, but rather, a chamber where the educated, enlightened, and successful citizens of the nation help to maintain the form of republican government. Or at least that's what James Madison and the Federalists intended.

[earthlyfather]

That would be 3/5s Greg.

Originally Posted by GregW

The Senate was instituted as a balance to the popularly elected House to provide equal representation to the lower population South (that is why they could count 2/3rds of the Slave population to set the number of Representatives) and to provide more influence for the rich establishment in the Federal Government.


The creators of the constitution feared a Democracy which is why they created a Republic dominated by wealthy landowners. The original voting requirements restricted voting at all to White, land owning, church members. In no way did they want field hands, tenant farmers, women, blacks or Chinese to vote. No way in Hell.

[earthlyfather]

Repeal the 17th. Reasoning for the passage and ratification was bogus and has proven so for more than 100 years.

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

yes

a senator is supposed to REPRESENT the STATE as a whole...no the voters...a senator should be appointed by the state. and answer to the governors, and mayors...let's get back to the constitution, not change it at will

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by earthlyfather

Repeal the 17th. Reasoning for the passage and ratification was bogus and has proven so for more than 100 years.

False, false, false. The special interests just move from election of US Senators to state legislature. Ever hear of the spoils system that was ramapant during the Jackson and Grant administrations?

[earthlyfather]

We became a country of political parties almost immediately upon the first election. So, that is not the issue. We were never intended to be or become a democracy. Democracies, people power, are naturally anarchical, if not initially, then ultimately. No thank you to mob rule.

My head today, someone else's head tomorrow and the next day; maybe yours.

Originally Posted by Phil P

But they don't do that. They represent the party. Like I said, there's really no reason for a Senate as they are just overlap. The constitution is a outdated way of doing democracy compared to the alternatives and really isn't worth studying, as it isn't really the law of the land.

It's a hindrance more than a benefit to the US.

[earthlyfather]

I think to be explicit about who a state's representatives, (Senators), answer to is distracting to the core message of Senator's representing state's interests, not the peoples. Legislatures did the appointing, which depending on a state's individual power structure may have meant the governor, a group of mayors, the legislative leadership, whoever. The who was not a static position, or person, rather strictly dependent on the political power structure. The fact it was changeable is neither good, nor bad. It is the way politics plays out, always has.

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

yes

a senator is supposed to REPRESENT the STATE as a whole...no the voters...a senator should be appointed by the state. and answer to the governors, and mayors...let's get back to the constitution, not change it at will

[earthlyfather]

Your post is indefensible. We don't have all of the cronyism and spoils and corruption today, more than 100 years after the passage of the 17th amendment?

Maybe you were just being sarcastic, without the tell tale sarcastic smiley. That is it, right?

Originally Posted by mkpunk

I don't know why we want to go back to the states picking the Senators to the US Senate. That's asking for cronyism and spoils, the populists of the early 1900's had it right by fighting to amend the Senate selection process section of the U.S. Constitution. It eliminates corruption.

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by earthlyfather

Your post is indefensible. We don't have all of the cronyism and spoils and corruption today, more than 100 years after the passage of the 17th amendment?

Maybe you were just being sarcastic, without the tell tale sarcastic smiley. That is it, right?

You should tell by my other post that I am not. Your proposal iis indefensible as well. I got a defense on mine, it prevents corruption on the state level trickling down to the federal level. Say Donald Trump contributed to New York legislature elections, he could then be voted into being a US Senator from New York. Do we really want that?

[earthlyfather]

Of course, that is exactly the point. By changing the selection method of Senators, from state legislature appointment to direct election, the corruption, cronyism was not eliminated, it just moved. What we lost in the process is the balance within the legislative branch.

The spoils system and cronyism has been on full display the last 7 years; Solyndra, Fiskar, the 100s of millions of DOE 'green energy funds' for streetcars to nowhere. All awarded to big bundlers and democratically run big cities. Save the head smack. This is the truth.

Originally Posted by mkpunk

False, false, false. The special interests just move from election of US Senators to state legislature. Ever hear of the spoils system that was ramapant during the Jackson and Grant administrations?