Why did the states vote for the 17th Amendment?

[TommyJeff]

To me the 17th Amendment is contrary to the intent of the founding fathers. Further, this amendment takes away the 'voice' of the states in congress - so why did 36 states support it?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven...s_Constitution

[fisharmor]

It's not just contrary to you. The founders actually knew what words meant, and they used the words that they meant, and meant the words that they used.
The 17th Amendment is objectively contrary to the intent of the founders.

Why, you ask? Because there were still plenty of people alive at the time who remembered the bloodbath of 1861-65 and what it meant: that the individual states were now subjugated to federal supremacy.

[HVACTech]

both the 16th and 17th amendments were disastrous for our country.
why states would voluntarily give up their voice is a very good question.
the effect was to make the Senate glorified congressmen. (popularly elected, instead of appointed by the states)

I can't give you a good answer, but I can give you a bump. Welcome to the forums!

[Chester Copperpot]

bump

[Pericles]

Temporary, bordering on permanent insanity

[Ronin Truth]

Why would you choose to believe that they did?

[TommyJeff]

Why would you choose to believe that they did?

I don't understand this question.
36 states voted 'yes' to add the 17th amendment.

[otherone]

From Republic to Empire in one fell swoop. It should have been ratified on March 15th.

[Ronin Truth]

I don't understand this question.
36 states voted 'yes' to add the 17th amendment.

Who says?

Faking CONstitutional amendment ratification goes back a ways.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...80.XCM-2CHq0fA

[acptulsa]

For the same reason primaries replaced 'smoke-filled rooms.' Because direct election is an easy thing to sell to Americans.

[jllundqu]

I've often asked the same question and have not come to any sufficient answers. Suffice it to say that when these amendments were passed, they were not done in a vacuum. One has to look at what was happening at the time, the overall attitude towards government, state vs federal, etc. I would posit people were told, through various propaganda mechanisms, that state governments were dangerous and corrupt and should not be given the 'privilege' of selecting US Senators. The country was undergoing a wave of populism at the time and they were lured by the double sword of "corrupt state governments" and "should be directly elected by the people" arguments.

I would fully support repeal of both the 16th and 17th.... what a leap toward liberty that would be, but alas, our nation, it would seem, is more interested in killing poor people and getting free $#@!.

[Ronin Truth]

"Those who cast the votes, decide nothing. Those who count the votes, decide everything." -- Joseph Stalin

[otherone]

I've often asked the same question and have not come to any sufficient answers. Suffice it to say that when these amendments were passed, they were not done in a vacuum. One has to look at what was happening at the time, the overall attitude towards government, state vs federal, etc. I would posit people were told, through various propaganda mechanisms, that state governments were dangerous and corrupt and should not be given the 'privilege' of selecting US Senators. The country was undergoing a wave of populism at the time and they were lured by the double sword of "corrupt state governments" and "should be directly elected by the people" arguments.

I would fully support repeal of both the 16th and 17th.... what a leap toward liberty that would be, but alas, our nation, it would seem, is more interested in killing poor people and getting free $#@!.

Very well said. IIRC, post-industrial crony capitalism at the state house level (real or propaganda) was the impetus. So the influence just packed their bags of lucre and moved to K street. More efficient that way. Ergonomic, even.

[HVACTech]

Very well said. IIRC, post-industrial crony capitalism at the state house level (real or propaganda) was the impetus. So the influence just packed their bags of lucre and moved to K street. More efficient that way. Ergonomic, even.

the hell you say! there is a banker at the bottom of this pile?

curses.

[osan]

To me the 17th Amendment is contrary to the intent of the founding fathers. Further, this amendment takes away the 'voice' of the states in congress - so why did 36 states support it?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven...s_Constitution

Stoopidity.

Palm grease.

Blackmail.

[erowe1]

I assume it's because the state legislators were taking orders from the same people the federal legislators were.

[Tywysog Cymru]

State legislatures are just as bad as the average voter.

[GunnyFreedom]

Problem, Reaction, Solution. Some guy in Montana paid like $30k apiece to legislators to elect him Senator, and Congress was offended.

that there were better ways to address that particular corruption was not considered relevant to their agenda.

[ClydeCoulter]

I've often asked the same question and have not come to any sufficient answers. Suffice it to say that when these amendments were passed, they were not done in a vacuum. One has to look at what was happening at the time, the overall attitude towards government, state vs federal, etc. I would posit people were told, through various propaganda mechanisms, that state governments were dangerous and corrupt and should not be given the 'privilege' of selecting US Senators. The country was undergoing a wave of populism at the time and they were lured by the double sword of "corrupt state governments" and "should be directly elected by the people" arguments.

I would fully support repeal of both the 16th and 17th.... what a leap toward liberty that would be, but alas, our nation, it would seem, is more interested in killing poor people and getting free $#@!.

But, it was the state legislators that had to ratify it, no?

[Ronin Truth]

But, it was the state legislators that had to ratify it, no?

But what Fed person certified the state's amendment ratification votes?

[ClydeCoulter]

From FindLaw:

17th Amendment Annotations

Popular Election of Senators

The ratification of this Amendment was the outcome of increasing popular dissatisfaction with the operation of the originally established method of electing Senators. As the franchise became exercisable by greater numbers of people, the belief became widespread that Senators ought to be popularly elected in the same manner as Representatives. Acceptance of this idea was fostered by the mounting accumulation of evidence of the practical disadvantages and malpractices attendant upon legislative selection, such as deadlocks within legislatures resulting in vacancies remaining unfilled for substantial intervals, the influencing of legislative selection by corrupt political organizations and special interest groups through purchase of legislative seats, and the neglect of duties by legislators as a consequence of protracted electoral contests. Prior to ratification, however, many States had perfected arrangements calculated to afford the voters more effective control over the selection of Senators. State laws were amended so as to enable voters participating in primary elections to designate their preference for one of several party candidates for a senatorial seat, and nominations unofficially effected thereby were transmitted to the legislature. Although their action rested upon no stronger foundation that common understanding, the legislatures generally elected the winning candidate of the majority, and, indeed, in two States, candidates for legislative seats were required to promise to support, without regard to party ties, the senatorial candidate polling the most votes. As a result of such developments, at least 29 States by 1912, one year before ratification, were nominating Senators on a popular basis, and, as a consequence, the constitutional discretion of the legislatures had been reduced to little more than that retained by presidential electors. 1
- See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amen....97FHA0Af.dpuf

[ClydeCoulter]

But what Fed person certified the state's amendment ratification votes?

Yes, I've heard that it wasn't exactly ratified, it nor the 16th.

[specsaregood]

Problem, Reaction, Solution. Some guy in Montana paid like $30k apiece to legislators to elect him Senator, and Congress was offended.

that there were better ways to address that particular corruption was not considered relevant to their agenda.

I recall how some liberal rag attacked you during your house race over your supposed position on the 17th amendment.

[GunnyFreedom]

I recall how some liberal rag attacked you during your house race over your supposed position on the 17th amendment.

LOL yeah, my Dem opponent spent $30k on TV ads saying "Glen Bradley wants to take away your right to vote for Senator, just go look at his website!" Of course my website said no such thing, instead it articulated a rational position on the 17th A. That publicity was actually very helpful indeed.

[otherone]

LOL yeah, my Dem opponent spent $30k on TV ads saying "Glen Bradley wants to take away your right to vote for Senator, just go look at his website!" Of course my website said no such thing, instead it articulated a rational position on the 17th A. That publicity was actually very helpful indeed.

Awesome. Free publicity...that's a Darwin Award candidate, there.

[TommyJeff]

From FindLaw:

I enjoyed your post. Thank you

[ClydeCoulter]

I enjoyed your post. Thank you

The problem with taking the issue of the selection of Senators from the state level, where they may already have been testing the selection with the population, and then making it mandatory at the federal level, is that states could no longer keep the federal government in check. Prior to the 17th, the states "could" test the level of support for candidates for senate using whatever method they prefer, then use their best representative judgement. Now, it is left up to the media on a grand scale. It is easier to bribe 100 individuals in the senate than it is to bribe all of those in the House. And, the states no longer have any control over passage of bills that undermine the state, whereas before they could recall an out of control senator.

[TommyJeff]

The problem with taking the issue of the selection of Senators from the state level, where they may already have been testing the selection with the population, and then making it mandatory at the federal level, is that states could no longer keep the federal government in check. Prior to the 17th, the states "could" test the level of support for candidates for senate using whatever method they prefer, then use their best representative judgement. Now, it is left up to the media on a grand scale. It is easier to bribe 100 individuals in the senate than it is to bribe all of those in the House. And, the states no longer have any control over passage of bills that undermine the state, whereas before they could recall an out of control senator.

Prior to the 17th A, could the states remove/replace a sitting senator prior to the end of their 6 year term? If so, this increases direct accountability and increases the likelihood of the senator voting in a way the state wishes even after he/she is given a seat in the senate

[fisharmor]

Prior to the 17th A, could the states remove/replace a sitting senator prior to the end of their 6 year term? If so, this increases direct accountability and increases the likelihood of the senator voting in a way the state wishes even after he/she is given a seat in the senate

It was on a state-by-state basis.

Not only that, but check out who it is who approves US Supreme Court appointments.

[HVACTech]

Prior to the 17th A, could the states remove/replace a sitting senator prior to the end of their 6 year term? If so, this increases direct accountability and increases the likelihood of the senator voting in a way the state wishes even after he/she is given a seat in the senate

the founders intent, was to impose a series of checks and balances on the accumulation of power.
"gridlock" if you will.
think of it as a game of chess. (or thrones..)
it is clear that both the fedgov and the states are required to be republics. correct?
this effectively outlawed "democracy"
and yet..
they employed the democratic process.

silly founders!