Why are conservatives so offended by the direct election of senators?

[Soupy Liberaltarian]

George Will is clearly off his rocker.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/20/AR2009022003034.html

[AllentownJake]

1. The Senate was originally intended to be even more elitst than it is now

The founding fathers intended the Senate to be a club of wise men who were appointed by the state legislatures to prevent the House of Representatives from becoming ruled by the mob. What was not forsawn during that time period was the absolute corruption that would exist in the state legislatures where "wise men" were really not that wise just people being rewarded for political kick backs.

The 6 year term was enough to prevent the mob rule mentality that the founders sought to prevent as political winds shift and at any time 33% of the Senate would be up for re-election. The state legislature idea was ok in theory but never really worked out that well and thus the constitution was amended.

[billyoc]

2. States should be able to choose their Senators any way they want.

Including gubernatorial appointment. McCain and Feingold are off THEIR rockers.

[onenote]

3. george is better at umbrage than history or facts

Reading Will's column you would get the impression that the 17th Amendment was foisted on the nation by a small band of "progressives" who were unrepresentative of the nation as a whole. Here are some facts that Will conveniently leaves out:

Before it was ratified, the 17th Amendment had to be approved by 2/3rds of the House and 2/3rds of the Senate (a Senate that still had a lot of members appointed by state legilsatures).

It had to be confirmed by 3/4 of the states --- something that was accomplished in less than a year's time -- in fact, the 17th Amendment was ratified faster than 20 of the 27 Amendments to the constitution. The state legislatures that approved it, of course, included many that were in so doing giving up their right to decide who would be senator.

Direct election was not some new fangled, early 20th century idea. Proposals to amend the constitution to allow direct election started being discussed in Congress in the first half of the 19th century. The problem, of course, was that senators selected by state legislatures had a vested interest in maintaining that system over one that would subject them to a vote of the people.

Yes, there were some great senators selected by state legislatures. There also were some very very bad ones. One of the Senators most instrumental in getting the 17th Amendment through the Senate was a senator from Wisconsin -- not Feingold, not McCarthy -- but Republican Robert La Follette Sr -- a man that many regard as one of the best senators ever to serve. Funny how George conveniently forgets about LaFollette's role.

Finally, if Feingold and McCain were trying to get around the 17th Amendment, I could see some basis for Will complaining. But they're trying to amend the constitution. THat, as noted above, requires a 2/3 vote of the House and Senate and ratification by 3/4 of the states. IF Mr. Will thinks the founders got it wrong when they provided a mechanism for amending the constituion, he should say so. Otherwise, he should limit himself to the reasons why he thinks the amendment is a bad idea rather than argue that there is something wrong with trying to amend the constitution.

[Uncle Joe]

4. This is no surprise coming from someone that believes money is speech.

I also believing having a term in office equating to 150% of a Presidential Term should allow any Senator to be deliberative. If they don't have the long term vision or integrity to be deliberative with 6 years in power, maybe Wall Street would be more suited to their talent.

Regarding the Constitution, the first words written aren't "We the deliberative body" nor even "We the responsive body," they're "We the people." Apparently we the people decided in 1917 they were adult and responsible enough to have a direct say in choosing their Senators.

[treestar]

5. This is part of it:

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.


The states' rights crowd.

[suston96]

6. I sent this to George Will......

I often enjoy your writings........

Regarding the 17th Amendment, in those days, early 1900s, there were almost enough constitutional convention calls by the states to call for a convention. The major reasons? Polygamy and the direct election of US senators. (From Documents and Readings in American Government by Matthews and Bardahl, Macmillan, NY 1947} where there are tables reflecting convention calls by the states and the reasons given by the citizens

A number of states had no senators because of partisan bickering in state legislatures. The Founders could not have foreseen such devastating partisan polemics in state legislatures.

[MoonRiver]

7. They don't want we unwashed masses to have any power.

Panic is setting in that the people's will may finally be done, and we need to expect some very extreme reactions from the Rethugs. They're not even able to hide their fascism anymore.