Here are some of the best paragraphs I’ve seen written on the topic of Lugar being handed his Senatorial walking papers. This comes from Michael Walsh at the Corner.
Yesterday’s forced retirement of Senator Richard Lugar of “Indiana” should prove a bracing lesson in the use of the pike for didactic purposes. It’s also one of the best arguments for the repeal of the 17th amendment in a long time.As I’ve said before, senators no longer represent their states to Washington, they represent Leviathan to the states, handing out either goodies or punishments as their whim and the political winds dictate. Their primary allegiance is not to the voters back “home” but to their cloakroom colleagues (hence the “bipartisanship” fetish that is particularly virulent in the Senate) on Capitol Hill, and to the Beltway parasites who feed off them.
Indeed, Lugar didn’t even live in Indiana. According to this story, he stayed in a hotel in Indianapolis, at taxpayer expense, whenever he deigned to visit:
I have for some time favored the repeal of the 17th Amendment as I think that the states are left powerless against the Feds.
And also, the phrase “the use of the pike for didactic purposes” is one of the best things I have read in some time. It nails it. Ba dum dum. I promise you I am stealing that.
Walsh goes on to say about the 17th…
“In the name of “democracy,” the “progressive”-era amendment fundamentally upset the balance of state-fed power that had been built into the Constitution, tipping it inexorably in favor of Washington. Unmoored from state or region for a minimum of six years — and more likely, twelve or 18 — the senators now form a club without a purpose except for their own reelections. Far from enhancing democracy, the very nature of the office now mocks it. “
Amen and amen. Senators should report to the States.
May 10, 2012 at 4:46 am
Repealing the 17th ammendment would exchange one type of corruption for another, but legislature-designated senators /would/ be more invested in the interests of their own state legislatures.
When you answer directly to the masses, there is a personal political incentive to creating and preserving foolishly-appealing, grandly-sweeping, and awfully-expensive federal "solutions."
Since unsustainable federal policies (exponential entitlement spending, crushing debt) seem to be the greatest threat to the enduring union of our constitutional republic, repealing the 17th ammendment looks like a good idea.
Consider: If our constitution hadn't granted state governments a stake in the federal legislature, what are the odds it would have ever been ratified? Maybe our fore and founding fathers knew what they were doing when they insisted upon it.
May 10, 2012 at 6:03 am
The people can't be trusted (unless they are voting against gay marriage).
Less democracy?
Weird.
If anything, the Lugar thing proves the process works. There have been more sitting Senators beaten in primaries in recent years than at any point in our history…
May 10, 2012 at 7:20 am
I have long thought so as well. The point of the House is to represent the will of the people in the federal government. The intended role of the senate was to protect the perogatives of the individual states against the encroaching might of the federal government. The 17th amendment was the dirt dumped over the coffin of States' rights, which was built in the Civil War.
May 10, 2012 at 11:25 am
I agree entirely, as I would rather travel 200 miles to burn someone in effigy, rather than 2000. Plus, stuffing all that hay into luggage these days will cost you an arm and a leg.
May 10, 2012 at 11:53 am
Amen!! The Senate was established to serve the State governments. The House was established to serve the people. The States have had no representation in Federal government for nearly 100 years. The Federal government is out of control; events like Roe V Wade, regulation happy EPA, and extreme debt never would have happened. We've lost a very important check and balance with the 17th.
May 10, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Why not just try to pass an amendment calling for term limits for all members of Congress? I say 2 terms for the Senate and 4 for the House.
May 10, 2012 at 12:16 pm
The 17th Amendment is by far and away the worst amendment to the Constitution (I might suggest the 18th, but at least it was repealed). It completely changed the nature of the Senate, and helped aid and abet the rise of the leviathan state. It's no coincidence that is'a creature of the Progressive era.
May 10, 2012 at 12:41 pm
Amy Giglio: The we would lose Christopher Henry Smith.
May 10, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Actually Paul, the Reconstruction amendments, (the 13th, 14th and 15th) were the worst amendments added to the Constitution. it set us up for the social chaos that we have on our streets today.
May 10, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Steve, the formal outlawing of slavery and the allowance of more Americans the right to vote were the worst amendments?
May 10, 2012 at 4:49 pm
What's funny is that Steve will protest that he's really no racist, yet he thinks the outlawing of slavery and the elimination of voter discrimination were the worst things that ever happened to this country.
As for the 14th Amendment, I will grant that the way it has been (mis)interpreted has caused incredible turmoil. But I'm sure Steve merely objects to the fact that dem darkies were granted civil rights.
May 10, 2012 at 6:48 pm
Paul and Josh, my postings on the American Catholic were about the honoring of a immoral, dishonest, reprobate, MLK, who like Obama, caused nothing but social strife in this country. My emphasis was on King's lack of character, not his race. You, McClarey, and the other commentators on that post were the ones who emphasized race. In fact, I noticed Paul, you used the word 'darky' in your comment. That's racist, Paul, racist! Tsk, tsk.
Those amendments were an early attempt at social engineering. It was naively assumed that giving the Negro the vote, freedom and citizeship would improve his lot in life. Well, well, 144 years later, the blacks will vote for the man who will give them the biggest hand out, freedom failed, especially in the urban areas, and citizenship among them is a joke, as long as they look to crooks like Jesse, Al, Barak, and Louie as their great leaders. There are some responsible black leaders, like Jesse Lee Peterson, but the majority of the blacks won't listen to them. They're considered oreo's by the soul brothers. BTW, I highly recommend Peterson's book "Scam' for a very frank look at the black community as it is today.
The amendments that I mentioned caused far more damage than the 17th ever did. The blacks, under the (misguildance) of the carpetbaggers, the Freemen's Bureau, the Union League, and under the protection of the Union troops, were encoraged to accert their 'rights' by treating the southern whites like dirt. Thievery of white property, the seizure of white owned land (the world famous 40 arces and a mule) violent crimes against whites, (including sex crimes against women) were the order of the day. The whites couldn't do a damm thing about it legally. They were disfranchised by the federal government. So they took action by fighting the Yankees with groups lke the Klan, the Red Shirts, and Rifle Clubs. Within a few years, the Federals, like the Soviets in Afganistan, realized they were fighting a losing battle and left by 1877. Freedom failed.
Josh, the blacks traded in slavery to the plantation owner from slavery to first the Republican party, then in the 1960's, slavery to the Democratic party. LBJ said when he signed the 1960's Civil Rights Bill, "that those n-word would be eating out of the hands of and voting for the Denocratic party for the next 200 years'. Truer words were never spoken! Very few Blacks belong to or support the Republicans. Why should they? Most people who vote Republican believe in personal responsiblity, having a job, instead of being a welfare loafer, being married to the mother of your children and supporting them, instead of instead of dumping them into the welfare system, non-believers in set-asides and affirmative action, and believe in limited government. The fact that the majority of the blacks in this country voted for Obama should tell you something. Namely the right to vote doesn't make smart enough to vote for the right person.
May 10, 2012 at 8:05 pm
Soooo . . . because blacks voted for Barack Obama it was unjust for them to be liberated from chattel slavery.
Steve, if you really want to continue to make an utter fool of yourself, I ain't gonna stop you. But you might want to seriously consider stepping away from the keyboard while you still have a single shred of credibility and decency left in you.
May 10, 2012 at 11:50 pm
The Founding Fathers intended the Senators to represent the states, not the people. That is why they were selected by the state legislatures, NOT the people. & exactly why the 17th Amendment should be repealed.
As for Lugar, he sounds a lot like a certain democrat from Iowa who has a home in the Bahamas but no actual residence in Iowa. They do own some property, but none they use for a residence. http://state29.blogspot.com/2007/10/tom-harkin-phony-iowan.html
May 11, 2012 at 12:01 am
Does anyone know remember WHY the 17th Amendment was passed? It was in large part due to a series of scandals in the late 19th and early 20th centuries involving Senators who essentially bought their seats by bribing members of their respective state legislatures. One of them, of course, was from Illinois: William Lorimer (google his name if you care to know the details).
Buying 50 or 60 votes from legislators as opposed to 2 million or so votes may be a lot cheaper, but it's also a lot easier to do. I understand everyone's point about federalism and the role of the states, etc., but, do we really want to go back to a process that would be EASIER for a small, elite group to manipulate?
Elaine
May 11, 2012 at 12:06 am
Also, it seems to me that Lugar's primary defeat by a Tea Party candidate proves exactly why the 17th Amendment SHOULD NOT be repealed. I'm not from Indiana and am not an expert on Hoosier politics, but I suspect that professional legislators would have been a lot more reluctant to get rid of a long-term incumbent with a lot of pull, clout, influence, or whatever, in DC than an outraged public would have been.
Elaine
May 11, 2012 at 5:25 pm
I'd rather see the entire primary system (including for Presidential candidates) scrapped entirely. Candidates would still be able to self-designate as Democrats, Republicans, or whatever, but the parties' hold would be substantially diminished. Neither major party has even the slightest interest in serving the majority of Americans.
May 12, 2012 at 3:14 pm
The original way of electing senators made sense. The legislators from different parts of the state would get together and decide what the people of the entire state wanted their senator to tell the federal government what they wanted the government to do. it was a terrible mistake to pass the 17th because it put to much power in the hands of the federal government, a process that has been ongoing since the 1860's.
Also, while boning up on the 17th amendment, I notice that nearly all of the sites that are concerned with this issue tie it into the 10th amendment. I can see why: the Constitution states that any powers not granted or given to the federal government belong to the states. Maybe Archbold Bros.,a post on the 10th amendment should be forthcoming to expand our knowledge on this subject.
May 13, 2012 at 7:01 pm
Never has a more profetic statement ever been uttered…"We The People's system of governance is broken."
Proof?
1) Presidential elections. SuperPacs. DNC, RNC, MSM, WALL STREET. Then, a wee mention of "Joe The Plumber…" almost as an after thought. See, We The People, per We The Elite People of culture of corruption in Washington DC, are an "also ran," a clay to be molded by "The Powers to BE." See, Washington DC Elite's will never give up their hard fought GREED and POWER…never!
2) State's Rights. Currently in the forefront. But with the 17th Amendment, Congressional Progressive Caucus, and Senators: Kerry, Sanders, Lugar, McCain, Rubio (to name a few)closet socialists, We The People's US Bill of Rights, Constitution and Declaration of Independence will soon have been morphed into Obama's Executive Order 13609.
3)NDAA. Need proof there isn't a "Rule of Law" in all of Our "Fruited Plains?" Read it. How's about more and more "judicial reviews" stepping onto and into legislative matters? Huh?
4) Now, America's Executive branch approves and authorizes every citizens "civil rights." And it's hadmaiden, the DOJ, used as an enforcement tool (behind this facade is the IRS, too).
America's and americans Only Salvation is going back to basics. Our Founding Fathers: Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence. "…endowed by Our Creator…" God is America's beginning and answer to everything ManKind. This template worked until the 1900's. Woodrow Wilson, FDR and LBJ (Man) messed with Our Creator and today, we're living God's wrath. Amen.
May 14, 2012 at 12:28 am
Katy Anders:
Pure democracy has many, many pitfalls, as Aristotle and others point out.
For one, pure democracy, in which the majority rules, is easily manipulated by a vocal and intimidating mob, because all you need is 51%. We saw this with the political machines of the late 1800s, in which the party in question would hire ruffians to intimidate people to vote the "correct" way.
For another, true democracy allows for "bread and circuses" to overwhelmingly influence popular opinion. Americans today are more concerned with Dancing With the Stars than they are with religious freedom or the federal deficit.
Thirdly,pure democracy has only really worked in relatively small groups (like the city-state Athens). This is impossible for an entire nation.
Finally (at least here), the United States Constitution was crafted by men whose life experiences and education had given them ample experiences with representative democracy (a republic) and democracy. They chose a republic, not a true democracy.