From Politics1.com:
US Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) is tired of the controversies surrounding US Senate appointments, first in Illinois and now in New York. “The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end,” he said in a press release. Feingold has announced he will introduce a constitutional amendment next week to take this appointment power away from Governors. Instead, Feingold’s proposed amendment would require special elections to fill all US Senate vacancies — as the Constitution currently requires for all US House vacancies. Wisconsin law — Feingold’s home state — already requires a special election to fill any US Senate vacancy.
Interesting, but there is a better solution than enacting a new constitutional amendment.
Repeal the 17th Amendment.
The 96-year experiment with the direct election of senators has pretty much been a bust. The Founding Fathers established the two distinct chambers of Congress for separate purposes — the House to represent the people and the Senate to represent the interests of the states. This was one of the great compromises in 1789 to bring together those who supported a new constitution with those who supported a modification of the Articles of Confederation that were then in effect. All the 17th Amendment did was make the Senate a glorified version of the House. Certainly voters have not done a better job at installing legislative giants in the Senate than state legislatures did until 1913.
In addition, Russ Feingold has always complained about the role of money in elections. Some of the most expensive elections waged in this country are for the U.S. Senate. That would no longer be the case if the process reverted to Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution with senators chosen by their state legislature.
The 17th Amendment should go the way of the Do Do bird and the 18th Amendment (the prohibition on alcohol.) All three were really bad ideas. Two down and one to go.
Additional reading on the subject can be found here with solid rebuttals to many of the old arguments that were used to support the passage and implementation of the 17th Amendment.
Filed under: Congress, Constitutional Rights, Corruption, National Politics
[...] is another alternative, of course, and it’s one I’ve discussed in the past and which Riley at Virginia Virtucon discusses today: Repeal the 17th [...]
I agree. Of course, any pol would be pilloried in a 30 second ad, but it is the wisdom that was abandoned.
As someone pointed out, why not use provisions in the current constitution for the United States to effect the same result:
“When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority (read, govenor) of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies…”As someone pointed out, why not use provisions in the current constitution for the United States to effect the same result:
“When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority (read, govenor) of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies…”
You are leaving out the rest of the paragraph, which reads:
“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.”
States like Illinois and New York have laws that permit the Governor to make these temporary appointments, which is why it’s done.
In fact, it would be far easier for voters in such states to get their legislators to change the laws to require elections in the case of a Senate vacancy than it would be to get Feingold’s proposed Amendment (or the proposed repeal of the 17th Amendment) through the 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states required to ratify.
While we’re at it, let’s repeal the 16th, 23rd, and 26th amendments.
We could probably get the 16th one repealed.
Considering how hard it is to ratify a Constitutional Amendment, I doubt it.
The last Constitutional Amendment ratification (not counting the 27th which had been sitting around since 1791) occurred 38 years ago.
Also, other than the 61 years that elapsed between the ratification of the 12th Amendment and the ratification of the 13th Amendment, this is the longest we’ve gone without the introduction and ratification of a new Constitutional Amendment.
I think campaign finaice reform in the Congress is important, but I would argue that the 17th amendment has increased the likelihood of such lapses in the Senate (which wouldn’t otherwise happen). I suppose the question is: who is being represented in the U.S. Senate? If you are interested in this line of thought, I hope you will have a look at the following post: http://euandus3.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/the-u-s-senate-what-is-it-really/