[POL] Tea Party Question

[WVUFAN]

I understand some of the points that the Tea Party has (even if I disagree with them), but one of their talking points is the elimination of the 17th Article of the Constitution, which makes the election of Senators a direct vote of citizens rather than by the state legislatures.

I haven't seen why they would want to eliminate direct voting of Senators? How does this benefit anyone?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I understand some of the points that the Tea Party has (even if I disagree with them), but one of their talking points is the elimination of the 17th Article of the Constitution, which makes the election of Senators a direct vote of citizens rather than by the state legislatures.

I haven't seen why they would want to eliminate direct voting of Senators? How does this benefit anyone?

The assertion seems to be that when the state legislatures chose the Senators, that was their oversight over Congressional matters. Basically, "Don't do onerous shit or we won't send you back."

Once direct election started happening, the states lost that measure of control, and Congress became more willing/able to infringe on their rights.

It's basically a "states rights = moar freedom" argument, as far as I can tell.

Just, y'know, conveniently ignore the corruption that happened under the old system.

[RainMaker]

I think it's bad because it produces more extreme Senators. The public tends to compromise better with their votes opposed to what a state legislature would. Basically if your party elects an extreme candidate for the general election, you lose many times. The Tea Party is a fringe group in a lot of areas and they feel this would be a better way to get more members.

I'm sure the far left feels the same way too. It has nothing to do with states rights even if they say it does. It has to do with getting more of their team in Washington. To marginalize independent and moderate voters.

[Autumn]

I can't imagine anyone in the far left advocating something that would take direct voting away from the people. I understand your point, that it's about power, not ideals, but I just don't think it fits in an ultra-liberal agenda at all. You're more likely to hear doing away with the electoral college from them.

[RainMaker]

I just think ideals go out the window when it comes to obtaining more power. They'd be for doing away with the electoral college if they felt it benefited them. Remember that ultra-liberals became huge states-rights advocates during the 2000 recount.

[albionmoonlight]

In doing some research for an unrelated project, I saw some of the materials from the debates when they were enacting the 17th Amendment. From what I could see, it was a really good change to the Constitution.

In addition to the corruption issues noted above, people also complained at the time that state legislative time and attention was becoming dominated by selecting the Senator.

It would be worse now. People think that if we go back to the old system, it would be a victory for local governance. It would not. It would be the opposite. Local legislatures would stop serving their individual states and would simply become proxies for the national parties.

If you really, seriously, honestly, and sincerely care about states rights, then elect federal politicians who actually (as opposed to simply rhetorically) share that belief. That's a lot easier than amending the Constitution.

Of course, very few people actually care about states rights. They care more about substantive issues, and they simply want the locus of power to decide those issues placed in the most friendly forum.

[Glengoyne]

I think there is a notion that senators elected by the people need to campaign for reelection, and they need money for that. Therefore they are all for sale. If you make them appointed rather than elected, then they can behave in the best interest of their constituents.

That seems more of a pro campaign finance restrictions position than a tea party position, so I'm not sure it would be related.

[revrew]

Regardless of motivations and machinations and projections of what would happen today if the 17th Amendment were repealed, the base of the well-intentioned argument is whether we would improve our government by restoring it to our Founders' vision, or whether the Founders' vision is outdated (this latter view believes we have made "progress" since then, from whence we get the term "progressive.")

The Founders envisioned a nation where the states united to form a central government with limited powers. As the Constitution was written, one of the states' jobs was to hold the federal government accountable to this vision. The Senate, then, was the legislative House that was held accountable not to the people, but to the state governments.

Again, the primary reason for this was to stop the federal government from growing too large and powerful. The (based on human nature) power-greedy states would stock the Senate with senators (if they wanted to keep their jobs) who would protect state governments from federal encroachment.

Today, we have strayed (or "progressed," depending on your politics), far, far from the Founders' vision. The federal government has, indeed, grown much larger and more powerful than the Founders ever intended - and that's not a political statement, simply a reality.

Tea Partiers typically (they hardly march lock-step) believe we would be better off returning to the Founders' vision. Progressives, like Woodrow Wilson, who was president when the 17th Amendment was passed, typically believe we have moved beyond that vision and need to craft laws and governances better suited to today's realities. They believe we can "progress" from where our Founders started (go "forward"?), rather than revert to where we were.

*In the interest of full disclosure, I tend toward Tea Party leanings myself, and I believe the 17th Amendment was one of the biggest mistakes ever made in American Constitutional history, right up there with Prohibition.

[gstelmack]

In the modern age, how long until we eliminate states entirely?

[revrew]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

In the modern age, how long until we eliminate states entirely?

I predict we'll see an end to the federal govt. (i.e., financial collapse) before we see an end to states, though it's possible some, like California specifically, could be radically reorganized or absorbed into the federal govt. before that.

Of course, that's all just speculation.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

centralized power sucks. states are only marginally better

[JediKooter]

I wasn't aware of any plans for California to secede from the union. Now I'm sure you will find an extremely small minority in every state with dreams of grandeur to secede. I'd be surprised if they numbered more than a few hundred people.

[sterlingice]

Texas says "hi"

That said, Rick Perry is quite shrewd with regards to pandering to that part of the base. "I don't want to be part of the health care exchanges" is code for "that means I fall under the federal government's exchange and don't have to pay for it"- that sort of thing.

SI

[britrock88]

I do sometimes wonder if we could have leaner, meaner federal governments if we split the US into 6 countries of 50 million people each, like the larger Eurozone nations.

[sterlingice]

It's an interesting question. Tho, I would argue that we are worth more together than the sum of our parts. Would you rather wield the power of France at the global negotiating table or the power of the US?

SI

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Texas says "hi"

That said, Rick Perry is quite shrewd with regards to pandering to that part of the base. "I don't want to be part of the health care exchanges" is code for "that means I fall under the federal government's exchange and don't have to pay for it"- that sort of thing.

SI

Texas is definitely an outlier.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I wasn't aware of any plans for California to secede from the union. Now I'm sure you will find an extremely small minority in every state with dreams of grandeur to secede. I'd be surprised if they numbered more than a few hundred people.

If this is in reference to my comment about California, I wasn't suggesting secession, but the state's path toward bankruptcy and potentially needing some sort of rescue. Coupled with its struggles to maintain water/electricity and now even pay its bills, I could foresee the state collapsing and needing to be restructured somehow. Of course, that's all speculative, but Cali IS in a world of financial hurt right now with very little light at the end of its tunnel.

[lordscarlet]

Is this a bad time to bring up that the founders also envisioned:

* Only land-owning white male voters
* A country with legalized slavery
* Saw no need for term limits on the Presidency

etc

[sterlingice]

But you can amend the Constitution!

Frankly, every time someone starts saying "I want to do just what the founders said", it makes me think of this Onion article but I'll just repost what I did a few months ago:

Originally Posted by sterlingice

The US Constitution is a few pages long. About 50 if you include all the amendments, if you make the pages small and sell it so that people can keep it on a breast pocket, next to their Bible or snifter of Scotch.

An average day in the life of one person in the modern world requires more than 50 pages to adequately explain and govern. From traffic laws (locally defined in the 10th Amendment but some things can be defined federally) to food inspection at the grocery store (interstate commerce) to what you do online at night (porn crosses even national boundaries!). And we're not even scratching the surface.

There are so many things that have to be decided at a national or international level which are not expressly stated in the Constitution. I don't think if Tom Jefferson were alive today, he'd be working towards: "You know, I need to build in an amendment for how to regulate sulfur emissions into the atmosphere because there's no wall that keeps out air between Tennessee and Kentucky".

Finally, while the "Founding Fathers" were, in a lot of ways, brilliant men. Putting them on some sort of odd pedestal as infallible is unhealthy hero worship at best to downright dangerously luddite.

SI

SI

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

An average day in the life of one person in the modern world requires more than 50 pages to adequately explain and govern. From traffic laws (locally defined in the 10th Amendment but some things can be defined federally) to food inspection at the grocery store (interstate commerce) to what you do online at night (porn crosses even national boundaries!). And we're not even scratching the surface.

There are so many things that have to be decided at a national or international level which are not expressly stated in the Constitution. I don't think if Tom Jefferson were alive today, he'd be working towards: "You know, I need to build in an amendment for how to regulate sulfur emissions into the atmosphere because there's no wall that keeps out air between Tennessee and Kentucky".

Well, it certainly seems like the situations you've described are all situations that the Constitution is set up to handle, and even (somewhat) defines who has the authority to create those laws. In your little sulfur emissions note, that would, in my opinion, be a fairly clear candidate for federal oversight under the Commerce Clause. There's no need for an amendment.

(Mind you, I think some, perhaps much of the authority Congress claims under the guise of Interstate Commerce is absolutely ludicrous, but your example isn't.)

Why should authority that the federal government isn't legally empowered to claim not require an amendment to change? Why is it a good thing to allow the federal government, not exactly a bastion of quality, more and more control?

Hell, I feel pretty comfortable in saying nearly every adult in the country has violated some law today, obscure or otherwise. Why on earth would we want to make it EASIER to pass laws & regulations, especially at a federal level?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by revrew

If this is in reference to my comment about California, I wasn't suggesting secession, but the state's path toward bankruptcy and potentially needing some sort of rescue. Coupled with its struggles to maintain water/electricity and now even pay its bills, I could foresee the state collapsing and needing to be restructured somehow. Of course, that's all speculative, but Cali IS in a world of financial hurt right now with very little light at the end of its tunnel.

It is somewhat in reference to your comment.

A lot of states are hurting financially right now though. I don't think California is any worse off than some other states and I believe California has received Fed money just like other states have. You also have to take into consideration that there's almost 40 million people that live in this state. That's a lot more than the little over 3 million that live in Iowa. So while the issues in California may seem a bit overwhelming, I don't think so when you factor in the the size of this states population. I think with some proper adjustments, it won't be too bad in the long run.

[RainMaker]

The thing with California is that they don't get back anywhere near as much as they put in. If they didn't have to support so many other states, they'd be doing great fiscally.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfo...docs/sr139.pdf

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

yeah, isn't cali's gdp like top ten in the world? the entertainment industry is a cash cow

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by revrew

If this is in reference to my comment about California, I wasn't suggesting secession, but the state's path toward bankruptcy and potentially needing some sort of rescue. Coupled with its struggles to maintain water/electricity and now even pay its bills, I could foresee the state collapsing and needing to be restructured somehow. Of course, that's all speculative, but Cali IS in a world of financial hurt right now with very little light at the end of its tunnel.

California, for all its struggles, is a significant net contributor to the federal budget. We pay a lot for places like say,the South (Texas exempted), and have done so for some time. There is plently of crazy in California, but it is at heart a very prosperous state, and not a good example for this.

[Crapshoot]

Dola,
California contributed ~$315B to federal tax revenue in 2007.

[britrock88]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Dola,
California contributed ~$315B to federal tax revenue in 2007.

Combining this with RainMaker's PDF (2004 data), the federal government spends ~$249B on California, so California's net contribution to other states is ~$66B.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by revrew

Today, we have strayed (or "progressed," depending on your politics), far, far from the Founders' vision. The federal government has, indeed, grown much larger and more powerful than the Founders ever intended - and that's not a political statement, simply a reality.

Only if you selectively pick your Founders. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention were deeply divided on the issue. Some Founders, like George Mason would agree with you. He despised the Constitution for granting the Federal government so much authority and making it preeminent over states. Other Founders, like Alexander Hamilton, supported a very strong central government. Presidents Washington and Adams worked to establish a strong central foundation; Jefferson would work to dismantle some it.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by britrock88

Combining this with RainMaker's PDF (2004 data), the federal government spends ~$249B on California, so California's net contribution to other states is ~$66B.

sure. but you can't put a value on cultural enrichment. where would we be without all those sandler or tyler perry movies.