RateItAll: The Opinion Network

This is a horrible amendment and should never have been adopted. Before we had representatives of the states in the Senate. Now we have representatives of the central government, in the Senate, sent to the states.

The quality of Senators under the new system is generally poor. The quality of senators under the old system was generally much better.

Compare Joe Biden, Bob Dole, Barbara Boxer, Trent Lott, Chuck Schumer, Joe McCarthy, and oh so many others to Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, and I could name one or two others, I'm sure.

It should be repealed, as should the Federal Reserve Act and the Income Tax.

Though I'm a huge proponent of elections and popular constitutionalism this Amendment removed a mechanism of restraint upon the unfettered emotional imput of direct involvement of the people. This has subsequently led to the over politicization of the legislative branch and added to egregious spending programs without viable checks on the factional interests involved. This Amendment struck a blow to the devolved republcian system as it was created.

Originally the founders intended for the Senate to be a check on the power of the legislative branch, which Madison believed was going to be the strongest branch in the government. To assure that their power would not be excessive, the founders decided to go with a bi-cameral legislative branch, with the Senate acting as a means to cool the passions of the House, which was popularly elected. The Senate was meant to be an elite body that acted sort of like the House of Lords in England, moderate, above the fray, while the House more closely represented the people. The Senate before 1913 was chosen by the state legislatures. The founders intended this to be a means of refining representation, a republican principle designed to avoid the tyrrany of the masses. They were very careful in general about making sure that Congresses would not dominate the President or the Courts. The movement for direct election of Senators was motivated by a variety of considerations, among them corruption in the state legislatures leading to bad elections. Bribery and intimidation involved some elections at the state legislative level. Some argued that the founders did not intend for such a means of electing senators, for it would upset the balance of power between the federal and state governments. Senators were seen as representing the States interests to the federal government while the House represented more local interests. What it actually produced was one local representative for every locality and one state-wide representative that was popularly elected as opposed to election by state legislators. In the final analysis, it was a good move. Electing senators by way of state legislatures led to delays in sitting senators due to deadlocks and challenges to the legitimacy of the vote. Vacancies were common for many states. There were major inconsistencies on how states elected senators. These deadlocks were caused primarily by contentious votes across several states. In the final analysis, the founders intent was served by this legislation, for senators are now forced to directly appeal to the people rather than elite interest specifically, thus creating a natural moderating mechanism.