I had no idea.
Give it a read, and become an even more educated voter.
UPDATE THE SECOND: Tam's essay; short version.
After the 17th
Representative: “My constituents want free stuff!”
Senator: “Yeah! My constituents want free stuff!“
Before the 17th
Representative: “My constituents want free stuff!”
Senator: “Whoah, whoah, whoah! How are we supposed to pay for all this crap back in Des Moines?“
UPDATE THE FIRST: Greg says his piece on the 17th.
Since senators are directly elected, there is little point in having two legislative houses. There are still differences of course, but both houses must cater to the popular and immediate whims of the people. One of the things I do bitch and moan about quite often is knee-jerk reactions from congress. Before the 17th, the senate acted as a buffer for "heat of the moment" legislation (which is why I always say there should be a "cooling off period" for passing new legislation... but that's another rant.) In addition, it was intended that the senate represent the state, and the house was meant to represent the people.
I would suggest that ratification of the 17th Amendment marked the end of states' rights.
2 comments:
I learned a lot from that essay and follow-up discussion, my American Civics study and knowledge is frightfully lean.
17th Amendment: Most destructive policy in the history of American government.
Really, most of our ails can be ascribed to that ridiculous attempt at the world's most useless government type: democracy.
I want my republic back.
Post a Comment