The framers of United States Constitution were so concerned over the prospect of one entity, be it a person or branch of government or some other group, becoming too powerful that they sought to employ checks and balances on power wherever it was convenient. Contrary to Lincoln's vision of a government being "of the people, by the people, for the people," the founders thought that the people needed to be kept from gaining too much power just like any other group. One way the power of the people was to be balanced was through the creation of two houses of Congress that were to be different not only in composition and powers but also in how they were to be selected. The House of Representatives was to be the people's body and so representatives were to be popularly elected. Senators, however, were to be elected by the vote of their state legislatures. In practice, this organization of the legislative branch may have done what the founders intended, but combative, inexpedient legislatures and corrupt senators continually called into question the wisdom of having state legislatures elect the Senate. In 1913, the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified; it stripped the power of electing senators from the hands of the legislatures and gifted it to the people. Whether or not this was a good idea is still widely debated today.
My personal philosophy on this issue is influenced both by the Lincoln ideal of government and by the founders' distrust for all potential abusers of power. Certainly, it is true that a tyranny of the majority is just as capable of oppressing individuals as a tyranny of one, so the individual does need to be protected from the majority just as it is protected from the state itself. However, I don't think protecting the individual from the majority should result in the majority being silenced for the sake of the individual. Ultimately, the legislatures which were to elect senators were themselves chosen by the people; why is it that legislators, once enshrined in office, may be trusted to choose better senators than the voting public would themselves? Are not the state legislators men and women like other men and women rather than a part of some elite group of people who were born to rule? I tend to think that the Lincoln definition of government fits popularly elected bodies like Congress and state legislatures as well as executive offices like president, governor, and mayor very well -- members of Congress and mayors are alike in that they represent and serve the people. However, not all government officials are beholden to the people. The judiciary follows another authority: the law. It is the law which is best able to protect the individual from whatsoever threatens his or her rights, given vigorous enforcement. To me, it makes sense to have a Senate that is elected and a Supreme Court that is appointed, because it is much easier for the people to decide if a candidate is fit to represent them than it is for them to decide if a candidate will uphold the law. Even so, Supreme Court appointments have become extremely politicized; this is perhaps because the president and the Senate are not particularly well suited to the job of selection, either.
Opponents of the 17th Amendment often prefer the older system of selecting senators not on the basis of checking and balancing the power of the people, but instead on the basis of either senatorial freedom or states' rights. I don't disagree with those who claim that a senator who does not face a popular election will be more free to legislate in the manner that he or she thinks best, but I'm not sure a representative of the people should feel free to act independently of the will of the populace at all times. A senator of conscience will vote his or her conscience when it matters regardless of how that senator came to be a senator; in terms of everyday matters, though, I think senators should defer to the will of the people if their conscience and political philosophy does not lead them strongly in one way or the other. As for the states' right issue, it might seem as if letting the people of a state directly elect their senators in no way jeopardizes the position of that state with relation to the federal government. However, states' rights are often concerned with the interplay of state governments with the federal government; if senators are chosen by the state legislatures, this means that state governments have direct influence on the federal government. Is giving state governments more influence worth locking the people out of the process of electing senators, though? At this point, I'd say no.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Excellent post. And it only took me a little over a year to find it!
Interesting article.
However, I do have to disagree on your final opinion.
I believe that you have let your reasoning be affected by an incorrect assumption.
You seem to allude to the fact that the Senate represents the people. This is simply not true. The original framers of the Constitution gave the power to appoint senators to the state governments, not only as a check on the power that could be wielded by the populace, but also because senators are simply not there to represent the people. Each state has exactly the same number of senators, because the senators are to represent the state's interests in the legislature. On the other hand, members of the House of Representatives do represent the people, which is why they are chosen through popluar election, and why each state has a certain number of representatives according to popluation.
Post a Comment