Should The Seventeenth Amendment be amended?

[Tigermike 4,305]

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution passed the Senate on June 12, 1911, the House of Representatives on May 13, 1912 and the states completed ratification on April 8, 1913. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, transferring Senator selection from each state's legislature to popular election by the people of each state. It also provides a contingency provision enabling a state's governor, if so authorized by his state's legislature, to appoint a Senator in the event of a Senate vacancy until either a special or regular election to elect a new Senator is held.

In obvious response to the scandal surrounding Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s attempt to sell Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat, Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold is proposing a Constitutional Amendment to make sure it can’t happen again:

Feingold Statement on Amendment Proposal

FEINGOLD TO INTRODUCE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ENDING GUBERNATORIAL APPOINTMENTS TO SENATE VACANCIES

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, issued the following statement today on plans to introduce an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to end appointments to the Senate by state governors and require special elections in the event of a Senate seat vacancy.

“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. In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators. They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people. I plan to introduce a constitutional amendment this week to require special elections when a Senate seat is vacant, as the Constitution mandates for the House, and as my own state of Wisconsin already requires by statute. As the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I will hold a hearing on this important topic soon.”

http://thepage.time.com/feingold-statement...dment-proposal/

It seems to me that it’s a bit of an over-reaction given the fact that Blagojevich is perhaps unique in the history of American politicians in the manner in which he attempt to profit from the availability of a Senate seat. Moreover, if the people of Illinois, or New York, want their Governor to appoint a Senate replacement rather than going through the expense of a statewide special election, why shouldn’t they be permitted to make that choice ?

Mr. Feingold, I live in the great state of Alabama and judging by the legislators we have in Montgomery, the last thing we want or need is that bunch of idiots appointing a U.S. Senator. But that's just my opinion.

George Will has a little to say about this:

Sen. Feingold's Constitution

By George F. Will

Sunday, February 22, 2009; Page

A simple apology would have sufficed. Instead, Sen. Russ Feingold has decided to follow his McCain-Feingold evisceration of the First Amendment with Feingold-McCain, more vandalism against the Constitution.

The Wisconsin Democrat, who is steeped in his state's progressive tradition, says, as would-be amenders of the Constitution often do, that he is reluctant to tamper with the document but tamper he must because the threat to the public weal is immense: Some governors have recently behaved badly in appointing people to fill U.S. Senate vacancies. Feingold's solution, of which John McCain is a co-sponsor, is to amend the 17th Amendment. It would be better to repeal it.

The Framers established election of senators by state legislators, under which system the nation got the Great Triumvirate (Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John Calhoun) and thrived. In 1913, progressives, believing that more, and more direct, democracy is always wonderful, got the 17th Amendment ratified. It stipulates popular election of senators, under which system Wisconsin has elected, among others, Joe McCarthy, as well as Feingold.

The 17th Amendment says that when Senate vacancies occur, "the executive authority" of the affected 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."

Feingold's amendment says:

"No person shall be a Senator from a State unless such person has been elected by the people thereof. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies."

Feingold says that mandating election of replacement senators is necessary to make the Senate as "responsive to the people as possible." Well. The House, directly elected and with two-year terms, was designed for responsiveness. The Senate, indirectly elected and with six-year terms, was to be more deliberative than responsive.

Furthermore, grounding the Senate in state legislatures served the structure of federalism. Giving the states an important role in determining the composition of the federal government gave the states power to resist what has happened since 1913 -- the progressive (in two senses) reduction of the states to administrative extensions of the federal government.

Severing senators from state legislatures, which could monitor and even instruct them, made them more susceptible to influence by nationally organized interest groups based in Washington. Many of those groups, who preferred one-stop shopping in Washington to currying favors in all the state capitals, campaigned for the 17th Amendment. So did urban political machines, which were then organizing an uninformed electorate swollen by immigrants. Alliances between such interests and senators led to a lengthening of the senators' tenures.

The Framers gave the three political components of the federal government (the House, Senate and presidency) different electors (the people, the state legislatures and the electoral college as originally intended) to reinforce the principle of separation of powers, by which government is checked and balanced.

Although liberals give lip service to "diversity," they often treat federalism as an annoying impediment to their drive for uniformity. Feingold, who is proud that Wisconsin is one of only four states that clearly require special elections of replacement senators in all circumstances, wants to impose Wisconsin's preference on the other 46. Yes, he acknowledges, they could each choose to pass laws like Wisconsin's, but doing this "state by state would be a long and difficult process." Pluralism is so tediously time-consuming.

Irony alert: Feingold's amendment requiring elections to fill Senate vacancies will owe any traction it gains to Senate Democrats' opposition to an election to choose a replacement for Barack Obama. That opposition led to the ongoing Blagojevich-Burris fiasco.

By restricting the financing of political advocacy, the McCain-Feingold speech-rationing law empowers the government to regulate the quantity, timing and content of political speech. Thanks to Feingold, McCain and others, the First Amendment now, in effect, reads: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech unless it really, really wants to in order to guarantee that there will be only as much speech about the government as the government considers appropriate, and at times the government approves."

Now Feingold proposes to traduce federalism and nudge the Senate still further away from the nature and function the Framers favored. He is, as the saying goes, an unapologetic progressive, but one with more and more for which to apologize.

georgewill@washpost.com

link

[OldNewby 27]

Hey Feingold & McCain. Get a room.

[autiger4life 3]

How is amending the constitution vandalizing it? If the constitution is the way that outlines that things can and might need to be changed and the proper way to do that is by an amendment, then isn't that following the constitution, not vandalizing it?

I am not speaking on the issue, and I guess we can start a new thread about what I'm talking about, but I don't see amendments as vandalizing the constitution since it is the constitution that allows for it.

I do however believe it is a choice of words chosen to give the idea a bad connotation. Which if the idea is bad, then I'm not sure it needs help from words that really don't apply.

Also, the first 10 amendments were made by the founding fathers, so I think they are okay with amendments.

[AURaptor 1,137]

the way I've had it explained is this. We the people, have Congress as our representatives to the Federal Gov't. The states, before the 17th Amendment, had the Senators to represent each of their interest. When the 17th Amendment passed, there were no longer any formal representation of the several state's in Washington D.C. any more. As is, the states have no one, no office, to represent them and their interest. I think the founders had it right, and that the 17th Amendment IS the vandalism to their original intent.

[quietfan 233]

Mr. Feingold, I live in the great state of Alabama and judging by the legislators we have in Montgomery, the last thing we want or need is that bunch of idiots appointing a U.S. Senator. But that's just my opinion.

Sen. Feingold's Constitution

Feingold's amendment says:

"No person shall be a Senator from a State unless such person has been elected by the people thereof. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies."

Then shouldn't you be in favor of Feingold's amendment, since it removes the state legislature from the process entirely? ...Or am I completely misunderstanding your position? (Of course, historically I wouldn't say the Governor's Mansion in Montgomery has been exactly an "idiot-free" zone either.)

As for the more general topic of "vandalizing" the Constitution: It is so hard to amend the Constitution, requiring two thirds of Congress and three fifths of the states' legislatures (or the equivalent at constitutional conventions), that I have to accept any successful amendment as reflecting the will of the people. Let's face it, NOTHING will ever be unanimous, but that's probably as close to unanimous as one can reasonably expect on any issue. I can forsee the possibility of one day an amendment that I absolutely hate getting such a super-majority, but I can't really argue with such a super-majority being anything but the true will of the people even if I disagree with said amendment in principle.

[autigeremt 7,551]

Special elections should take place in the event a senator or representative is out of officer for whatever reason. I have no problem with that.

Elected, representative government. Like it or not, I agree with that.

[autiger4life 3]

the way I've had it explained is this. We the people, have Congress as our representatives to the Federal Gov't. The states, before the 17th Amendment, had the Senators to represent each of their interest. When the 17th Amendment passed, there were no longer any formal representation of the several state's in Washington D.C. any more. As is, the states have no one, no office, to represent them and their interest. I think the founders had it right, and that the 17th Amendment IS the vandalism to their original intent.

First of all Raptor I would like to say that is one of the most clear, concise, non-partisian answers I have ever seen you give that neither tries to start a fight or attacks another position. Well done, I will try to continue in the spirit.

Here is what I found on the amendment:

The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, transferring Senator selection from each state's legislature to popular election by the people of each state. It also provides a contingency provision enabling a state's governor, if so authorized by his state's legislature, to appoint a Senator in the event of a Senate vacancy until either a special or regular election to elect a new Senator is held.

So basically the amendment gave the right to choose the legislators to the people instead of the people they had already elected to the state legislators. To me that seems there is more power for the people and less power for the politicians, which I think would be good. And the amendment Feingold wants is to kill that last part so that the Governor would not select someone, but that it would go back to the people. As we have seen from Illinois, this is probably a good thing. At least in my opinion. The same thing happened in New York with Clinton's seat. There was a lot of politics going on, and no one seemed to care what was best. So, I don't see how this is vandalizing anything. I would actually think republicans would be for the 17th amendment since it gives more power to people and not politicians.