With the amount of press the 17th Amendment has been receiving lately, I try to post opposition articles to the repeal when I come across the better posts. Here is one such by Professor Steven Taylor: here are his points against:
Comment: I just spotted this post this morning and will have more time this evening to reply. I'll post in the comments section of the web-log and please comment here or on Mr. Taylor's web-log as well.In all truth, I find the whole notion to be a bizarre one. Here are some reasons why.
1) The notion that somehow having the state legislatures choose Senators is more representative of the state’s interest than having the voters of the state choose the Senator is odd on its face. It assumes that the state legislature is more representative of the state than the state’s citizens. Since the former is a non-random sample of the latter, it is rather unclear to me why this would be the case. Further, since the state legislature is chosen by the citizens of the state I am wholly unclear on why giving them the power to choose Senators makes that selection better for the state than allowing the citizens to select the Senators. Why the addition of a group of middle-men/women would improve the quality of selection is beyond me.
Why would this:
Citizens—>State Legislature—>Senators
be superior to this?
Citizens—>Senators.
The logic is strange insofar as it assumes that voters should be the fount of power for the legislature, which is the key power of state government, but the voters can’t be trusted to choose Senators.
Further, it assumes that politicians (i.e, state legislators) actually deserve more trust than voters.
This especially odd, as most citizens don’t pay all that much attention to their state legislators so ceding the power to that body to select Senators is like tossing it into a black box.
2) A corollary to the above: how can we say that there is a “state interest” that is separable from the interests of the people in a given state? There is a weird fetish here that reifies the state as though it is an entity at least in part separate from the people that live within its borders. If all the people left the state of Texas, then so, too, would Texas lose any “interests” as a state. It would just then be a lot of land.
3) It is wholly unclear (despite what “The Campaign to Restore Federalism” argues here) that Senators selected by state legislatures would behave all that differently in terms of things like pork barrel spending and the basic behavior of the federal government than one elected by the citizens. What, state legislatures don’t like highway and education funding?
4) There is no reason to associate the nature of selection of Senators with the quality or existence of federalism. Despite what some argue, the states still maintain a great deal of policy autonomy in a number of areas (the same ones they have for a long time now, like criminal justice and education) and the very nature of the Senate, with co-equal representation further solidifies federalism. The way those Senators are selected really have very little to do with any of that.
9 comments:
"The notion that somehow having the state legislatures choose Senators is more representative of the state’s interest than having the voters of the state choose the Senator is odd on its face. It assumes that the state legislature is more representative of the state than the state’s citizens."
The author is assuming his goal is the same as everyone else's goal - a Senate based on interest of the people rather than the interests of the state governments.
"...how can we say that there is a “state interest” that is separable from the interests of the people in a given state?"
How can we say there's a Chinese Communist Party that is separable from the interests of the working class in China? How can we say a trade union isn't supporting Obamacare so it can dump benefits and keep more of the dues?
"...the state as though it is an entity at least in part separate from the people that live within its borders. If all the people left the state of Texas, then so, too, would Texas lose any “interests” as a state. It would just then be a lot of land."
Is the author denying the existence of state governments? If everyone but the state legislature left, the remaining population would be voting for themselves or each other and still have an interest. If Texas was completely abandoned, then there would be no republican form of government and thus couldn't be considered a state.
Repealing the 17th will give the states representation in the federal government. Any argument about accountability to the people, whether the state governments will be accurately represented, whether government will be smaller, etc. is a personal opinion.
The author isn't arguing for or against the 17th Amendment, instead he is arguing whether or not the American people will be better represented if the 17th Amendment were to be repealed.
See the bias?
There is a strong movement within academics of political science and public administration fields that advocates the removing of all states and state power (power derived from below, the people) from the US and having federal regional centers that would administer over the United States for the federal government. Many have likened the ten regional centers assigned by FEMA as the future (take note how USNORTHCOM fits right in that template to “police” over the citizenry).
This is the route we have taken since the 16th and 17th Amendments were the electorate votes for their “federal representative,” the US senator, who then turns over their authority to administer to the unnamed, unelected, and unaccounted agency bureaucrat (USDA, DOT, FDA, HUD, FEMA, DHS, BLM to name a few) that administers over the US.
Having that so-called middleman, the state legislator, the population is protected and ensures republican representation in the federal government ensuring the line is not crossed between the state and federal governments. The author clearly forgets about the system of checks and balances the framers designed. But when one see nothing wrong with a Hegelian model of governance then checks and balances only get in the way of regional administration.
Jim
Point number three is clearly examined in Zywicki's paper something Professor Taylor has not considered or examined. The increase in spending, real spending, not pork, has grown astronomical. Prof. Taylor should check out the multitude of report from the GAO that point to this fact.
Considering Prof Talyor's forth point, where is the data to support this, he fails to provide even one shred of evidence. Even during the administration of Clinton it was recognized by the President, a former governor, that federal government has and is clearly usurping the 10th and 19th Amendments. Prof. Taylor is clearly not a advocate of state sovereignty because the data is voluminous demonstrating this fact.
Jim
The author is assuming his goal is the same as everyone else's goal - a Senate based on interest of the people rather than the interests of the state governments.
This begs the question of where the interests of the state governments come from.
Answer: from the people of the states in question.
Anonymous/Jim,
"that federal government has and is clearly usurping the 10th and 19th Amendments."
The 19th is the women's right to vote. What did you mean to say?
Steven Taylor,
"where the interests of the state governments come from...from the people of the states in question."
It's real sad most people wouldn't think of that :(
Thank you for the catch, I meant to say the 9th Amendment.
Jim
Can the voter be trusted; I think the answer is certainly yes and no. When things are going well the voter is generally apathetic, however when some thorn is pressed into the side of the voter, which as best as I can tell has generally only been war, the voter reacts. So having a group local people vested in the community who are elected to serve has demonstrated to be the best way to care for the community. Also it is within a reasonable scope or span of control that the local politicians fairs better than what we have today.
Consider all of the areas the US Senate involves themselves in our lives, the size of the water tank on your toilet, the fuel efficiency of the car, the type of material that is used in spray cans; the list is exhausting. Yet we are to believe that US Senate can care best for the needs of the state, while in most cases the senator has never lived in the state, when they are focused on everything other than the state. It’s impossible and this why our states are sinking on the weight of an oppressive federal government. There is no one there to protect them. Quite simply our senators involve themselves in everything other than what is immediately important and pass laws and regulation so fast without reading them because they see themselves as our, the citizens, administers. However, if we go back to the framers construction they were meant to be the state’s representative in Congress and to serve as check and balance to the federal government. There is no strange logic there.
There is always a state interest because it was through the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the US Constitution where the independent states provided for the limited power to form the union. Oresties Brownson quite accurately said that in the forming of US Constitution both the confederation and the states came together to form the new union and without either the union could not be formed. So there is a state interest.
The problem we are faced with today is that since the War Between the States there has been a growing absorbing of the states by the federal government, which has taken place at significant points of war: the War between the States, Spanish American, WWI, WWII, the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Gulf War, OEF, OIF and the GWOT. Many point to the expansion of the welfare state as the precipitator, but I believe substantial increase in centralized federal control has come about because of war. War has been the mechanism the power elite has used to increase federal control.
Consider today how the governor of a given state has no authority over that state’s national guard. All of the state’s supposed militias are all federalized. Now there is effort under way to make the Chief of the National Guard Bureau supreme commander over all National Guard forces. Is this something we should worry about?
Yes the states have a vested interest.
Mr. Taylor thanks for stopping by.
Post a Comment