From Eloquent Advocates to Boorish Hacks

The 17th Amendment is stupid:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years….

But let me start at the beginning. Article I 3 cl. 1 of the Constitution originally established the election of Senators through the state legislatures. The Federalist #62 laid out numerous arguments for the Constitutional framework of the Senate and its method of selection.

The senatorial trust, which, requiring greater extent of information and stability of character, requires at the same time that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages….

Years later, Alexis de Tocqueville made some observations about the Senate in “Democracy in America.”

The Senate is composed of eloquent advocates, distinguished generals, wise magistrates, and statesmen of note, whose arguments would do honor to the most remarkable parliamentary debates of Europe.

We went from great statesmen like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John Calhoun prior to the 17th Amendment, to that of Al Franken.

This man would never have been elected to the Senate prior to the 17th Amendment.

A number of issues in the Missouri Senate race highlight the problems with the 17th Amendment, which leads me to US Senate candidate Robin Carnahan (D-MO).

As a Missouri blogger pointed out, she has no clue what a “banking executive” does or which side of the podium the state and national flags should be placed, let alone what her role would be as a Senator from Missouri. Evidence of this can be found in her recent smears of US Senate candidate Roy Blunt (R-Missouri). She accuses Blunt of being a proponent for a “Big Oil Bailout” in light of the recent BP oil spill. Her accusations were quickly debunked by left-leaning factcheck.org. Of course, the bigger issue here is what the hell that has to do with Missouri. What should concern Missourians is Democrat support for Cap & Trade that has been influenced by BP and would harm Missouri taxpayers. Robin Carnahan should have to explain why she would not support a job-killing bill proposed by her party, and supported by “Big Oil.” I say “should” because she is nowhere to be found. Roy Blunt can be seen all over the state campaigning.

Carnahan is relying on her name recognition in Missouri, and her ability to avoid commenting on any substantive policy concerning the state of Missouri. Her life in public office as Missouri Secretary of State consists of playing patron to various progressive organizations in their quest to ruin the elective process in Missouri. The “Carnahan” name does have some pull. Her father infamously defeated John Ashcroft in a 2000 Senate race, despite the fact that he died prior to the election. Her brother, “Rubberstamp” Russ Carnahan, similarly won with name recognition a seat in the US House of Representatives. He tows the line for Nancy Pelosi and the national Democratic Party, just like Robin will do if she wins. If the 17th Amendment did not exist, her campaign for Senate would be laughable.

Another issue is the Republican primary. The favorite is heavyweight US Representative Roy Blunt, while the underdog, State Senator Chuck Purgason, has been garnering support from the grassroots.

Blunt has the resources to defeat Carnahan, while Purgason has the outsider credentials favored in the national anti-incumbent atmosphere. This is where the fight for Missouri’s Senate seat should be fought. Without the 17th Amendment, Carnahan would not stand a chance with the conservative state legislature (which allowed the first state referendum on Obamacare). She relies on the media in St. Louis and Kansas City to push her candidacy, while Blunt and Purgason fight it out among voters to their own detriment. In the end, Missouri may not get the representative it deserves in the Senate.

I have often said that when it comes to American government we should ask ourselves WWJMD (What would James Madison do?), and so I end with the thoughts of James Madison (who, I might add, authored the Constitution), in Federalist # 62, which exemplifies the need for contrast between the two houses of Congress:

It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust. In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient. This is a precaution founded on such clear principles, and now so well understood in the United States, that it would be more than superfluous to enlarge on it. I will barely remark, that as the improbability of sinister combinations will be in proportion to the dissimilarity in the genius of the two bodies, it must be politic to distinguish them from each other by every circumstance which will consist with a due harmony in all proper measures, and with the genuine principles of republican government.

It appears that “sinister combinations” have increased proportionately with the decrease in “dissimilarity” between the houses of Congress. As a result, the administrators of our national government have forgotten their constituents, and proved “unfaithful to their important trust.”

Repeal the 17th Amendment!