Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) is proposing a constitutional amendment that would change the way vacant Senate seats are filled.

Presently, whenever there is a vacant senate seat, the executive authority of the particular state that is missing representation — the governor — appoints someone to fill the seat. Feingold claims the current system invites corruption and cites the recent questionable appointment of Roland Burris in Illinois by Gov. Blagojevich, problems with Sen. Judd Gregg’s open seat in New Hampshire, and with Hillary Clinton’s New York seat.

Feingold calls the present system a “constitutional anachronism.” “It is time to pass a constitutional amendment to end appointments by governors and the political gamesmanship they encourage," he said.

The present system of gubernatorial appointments, however, is not the original system put in place by the authors of the Constitution; these appointments are the result of the 17th Amendment ratified in 1913.

Our Founding Fathers structured a system wherein the legislature would be selected by two different methods — the Senators for each state would be selected by the state legislatures, and the House members would be elected directly by the people.

Why were these two differing methods chosen? By having two independent power centers of power — lodged in the people’s representatives and the state legislatures’ representatives respectively — there was less chance of a centralized power taking over. As a safeguard against the encroaching power of a centralized national government, this was an important part of the Founding Fathers’ system of checks and balances.

Signer John Dickinson (sometimes spelled "Dickenson"), a Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, explained:

The preservation of the States in a certain degree of agency is indispensable. It will produce that collision between the different authorities which should be wished for in order to check each other.

If the State Governments were excluded from all agency in the national one, and all power drawn from the people at large, the consequence would be that the national Government would move in the same direction as the State governments now do, and would run into all the same mischiefs.

George Mason agreed with Dickinson, noting that the state legislatures had to have some means of defending themselves from the tyrannical tendencies of a national government as well, saying:

What better means can we provide than giving them [the states] some share in, or rather to make them a constituent part of the National Establishment?

Charles Pinckney went even further, arguing that both the House and the Senate should be elected by state legislatures, believing that the states’ political survival was necessary in order to restrict and limit the power of the national government. Roger Sherman added this during the debates of the Convention:

If it were in view to abolish the State Governments the elections ought to be by the people. If the State Governments are to be continued, it is necessary in order to preserve harmony between the National and State Governments that the elections to the former should be made by the latter.

Subsequently the Signers, in Article I, Section 3, established that, in the case of senate vacancies, “the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.”

This time-honored system saw little discord or corruption and abuse. But in 1913, the 17th Amendment was passed with little fanfare, allowing for the direct election of Senators, accompanied by language that would allow gubernatorial appointments for vacancies.

Several theories exist as to why this was done, but in hindsight, it opened the door for special interest groups to use money and political strategies to influence the election process. Federal expansion has grown dramatically since the 17th Amendment was ratified, lending credence to the theory that the 17th was of great import to those who would destroy the republic by snatching and garnering power.

Feingold is taking exactly the wrong approach, then, in introducing S.J. Res. 7 with a view to ending political gamesmanship and corruption in Senate gubernatorial appointments. The main thrust of his constitutional amendment proposal is:

No person shall be a Senator from a State unless such person has been elected by the people thereof. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.

So it’s really a popular vote that Feingold is after. And he wants the taxpayers to pay for the special elections that would result. The Associated Press estimates that a special Senate election in Illinois alone would cost between $30 and $50 million. With many state budgets already strained, or in arrears, and taxpayers already sentenced to decades of servitude to pay for all the bailouts, Feingold’s proposal is beyond extravagance — it’s needless wastefulness in pursuit of a system that the Founding Fathers opposed for very good reason.

Although a national popular vote is not what Feingold is calling for (yet), the problems and abuses would be the same, and both are an attack on the voting power of the more pro-liberty minded states. Ron Paul noted in 2004 that a popular vote election would “intensify political pandering, as national candidates would face even greater pressure than today to take empty, middle-of-the-road, poll-tested, mainstream positions. Direct democracy in national politics would further dilute regional differences of opinion on issues, further narrow voter choices, and further emasculate political courage.” Paul also reminded us: “States created the federal government, not the other way round.”

Since the 17th Amendment is the cause of the more permanent executive authority appointments, it stands to reason that it should be repealed. As the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Feingold should already be familiar with the contents of the Constitution and the intent of the framers. He should know that an indirect election of Senators provides an opportunity for states’ interests to be represented in national decisions, treaties, appointments, etc., acts as a good filter, would eliminate governor appointees AND would be an automatic fix for Feingold’s campaign finance reform program. But perhaps someone who speaks of some points of the Constitution as being anachronistic would have little or no regard for the principles of the document.

Unfortunately, Feingold is promoting pure democracy, the ugly kind that ultimately devolves into excessive taxation without representation and outright tyranny. “When you don’t use the idea of ‘one person, one vote’ it’s an invitation to corruption, embarrassment or abuse. It’s [the present system] unattractive and undemocratic,” he says, adding, “We have just seen how bad it is to have a governor make this decision. It doesn’t fit our democracy.”

No, it isn’t democratic, but then, we don’t have a democracy. It’s called a Constitutional Republic, something Senator Feingold is sworn to uphold. Perhaps his copy of the Constitution is worn and tattered and he can no longer decipher the text. I think I’ll send him a new one. Anyone care to join me?

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

archtoplee said:

17th amendment Ann, along these lines the democracy voices have also been "out to get" the Founders' Electoral College. In New Mexico representative Mimi Stewart has introduce this House bill 383. http://nmlegis.gov/Sessions/09 Regular/bills/house/HB0383.pdf She calls it an agreement among the states. Here is the beginning of her bill--- "An ACT RELATING TO ELECTIONS; ENACTING THE AGREEMENT AMONG THE STATES TO ELECT THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO: Section 1. COMPACT ENACTED AND ENTERED INTO.--The "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote" is enacted into law and entered into on behalf of New Mexico with any and all other states legally joining therein in a form substantially as follows: "AGREEMENT AMONG THE STATES TO ELECT THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE Article I. Membership. Any State of the United States and the District of Columbia may become a member of this agreement by enacting this agreement........" The New Mexico legislature link is:http://nmlegis.gov/lcs/_session.aspx?chamber=H&legtype=B&legno= 383&year=09

report abuse vote down vote up

February 09, 2009
Votes: -3

mvymvy said:

the shortcomings of the current presidential election system The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections. In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

report abuse vote down vote up

February 09, 2009
Votes: +0

danwhitehead1 said:

	Send a copy I think Ann Shibler is being very gracious in thinking that Feingold would even bother to read the copy of the Constitution that she would make the effort to send. He's part and parcel of the growing number of power hungry swine who actually couldn't care less about the Constitution. 1913 was certainly a very bad year for the Republic. I'm wondering if 2009 won't be a replay of same?
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 09, 2009
Votes: +4

PETER STEELE said:

	RE: Democrats This country is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic as I have the Regnery book The Democrats' Dilemma as the DNC had tried to ram pure socialism into America by legislation. Ben Franklin, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were right for America. I will be a Birch member as my wonderful father had been.
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 09, 2009
Votes: +1

Greg S. Williams said:

... I am surprised that Mr. Feingold recognizes the existence of a Constitution at all. After all, it was he, along with The Honorable John McCain, who managed to turn free speech on its ear by outlawing political advertising by citizens groups. Of course, they took care of their buddies behind the editor's desks across America by exempting them, presumably because they are of a higher caliber that the mere masses. Feingold doesn't give a damn about us or our Constitution.

report abuse vote down vote up

February 17, 2009
Votes: +3