| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Arizona Anti-Federalist Proposes Evasion Of 17th Amendment |
| 2010-02-10 |
| A freshman Southern Arizona lawmaker is leading the effort to strip Arizona voters of the right to nominate U.S. senators. The proposal by Rep. David Stevens, R-Sierra Vista, would give that right to the elected legislators from each party. Only after that process is complete would voters get a say, in the general election, who they actually want to send to Washington. Stevens said his measure, if approved by Arizona voters in November, would be a partial return to the way things were before the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted. Until then, each state legislature actually got to choose its U.S. senators, with voters allowed only to pick only the folks going to the House of Representatives. The 1913 amendment requires direct election of all members of Congress. Stevens said that amendment was a mistake. He said the old system ensured that senators were responsive to the desires of state lawmakers. "The state is supreme over the federal government,' he said. "And when they weren't doing what we thought they should be doing, we could recall them at any time.' With direct election, Stevens said, federal senators are less interested in protecting the rights of the states and more interested in looking out for the powers of the federal government. "It takes away the ability of the state to negotiate with the federal government,' he said. Unable to repeal the 17th Amendment, Stevens is trying the next best thing: changing the nominating process. He said HCR 2046 would not run afoul of the U.S. Constitution because it does preserve the direct election of senators as required. He said nothing in that amendment spells out the nominating process for those candidates, which is what he wants to change. Because his plan requires voter approval, nothing in his measure would affect this year's Republican primary battle involving incumbent John McCain and challengers J.D. Hayworth and Chris Simcox. Stevens said, though, there might be an entirely different political landscape if McCain, Hayworth and Simcox were busy battling for the support of the 35 House Republicans and 18 GOP senators rather than seeing who can corral more popular votes at the primary in August. In fact, he said it is possible that someone like Hayworth, whose campaign warchest is going to be dwarfed by McCain, actually might have a better chance of becoming the party's nominee. "He would have to come down and, basically, campaign us,' Stevens said. Stevens said he believes he can sell voters on the idea of giving up their right to nominate their U.S. senators. "I'll ask them if they feel like they're being served by their senators,' Stevens said. "And I can pretty much tell you what they're answer is going to be, that is 'no,' ' he continued. Stevens added, though, he said he's not just talking about Arizona but the situation nationwide. The plan will get no backing from McCain. "Senator McCain believes all elections, primary and general, should be decided by the people, as stated in the Constitution,' said aide Brooke Buchanan. Hayworth said he is sympathetic to what Stevens is trying to do. "I believe in states' rights,' he said. But Hayworth said he can't support this specific measure. "Right now I just think it's important for the people to decide' who are their Arizona senators. And Simcox said he's not sure if such a change would make the process better. On one hand, he said the measure might help candidates like himself who he contends are more committed to the principles of the party and less to being loyal to those who control the party structure. But Simcox said he also can foresee a way that this system also can be co-opted by the party leadership. The measure does have an escape clause for recognized parties that don't happen to have any members in the Arizona Legislature: Their U.S. Senate nominees would continue to be chosen the way they are now through a primary race. Stevens said even if he gets his wish and the nominating process is changed, it still might be difficult for Arizona lawmakers to keep their federal senators' feet to the fire. That goes back to the 17th Amendment and that federal requirement for direct election. "Once they get elected to their six years, we (legislators) don't have the ability to call them back,' Stevens said. This is brilliant! McCain hates it, because right now his rich wife and lobbyists buy him his seat. He doesn't give a damn about Arizona. But even if a bad senator, who betrays his State, is elected once, it means that he will be a 1-term senator only. Term limits. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose |
| #8 Moose, 1913 also was the year the Federal Reserve was created. I've often thought of getting an on line newspaper archive for 1912 and 1913 and reading the paper daily for two years to find out what they thought was going on. 1913 was a black year for freedom. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-02-10 20:35 |
| #7 'moose, I'm sure that you're correct. But I'm such an old fart that I still consider my self a "liberal". According to today's liberal's I'm a raging right wing death beast ;^) |
| Posted by: AlanC 2010-02-10 20:26 |
| #6 AlanC: By today's definition, a Federalist supports the idea of a balance of power between the national government, the individual States, and the people. An Anti-Federalist supports the idea that the individual States, as a group, should be superior to the national government. This is more like Rep. Stevens statement, "The state is supreme over the federal government." So today, Federalists and Anti-Federalists are not in contention, because they both hold that the national government has taken far too many powers not authorized it by the constitution. This has gone so far that it means that all three branches of the national government have usurped power that is constitutionally denied them. The executive branch and the bureaucracy, the legislative branch, and the judiciary, all need to be reduced in stature, in relation to the individual States and the people. In 1913, the national government stripped away the power of the States, with the 17th Amendment, and directly inserted itself into the lives of the people with the 16th Amendment. So in effect, the national government took absolute power from the States and the people. And this is as bad as if the POTUS declared himself dictator. Which, now that the States cannot constrain the national government, has been one of the directions the national government has taken. The POTUS thinks himself above the law, and able to create law on his own. The federal judiciary now demands that States must obey them as well, appropriating money as judges see fit, and being given "special masters" if they refuse to obey. And senators are now paid by lobbyists and corporations, and are responsive only to them. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-02-10 18:18 |
| #5 State ledislature corruption, deadlock and no sitting senators, etc. were the reasons that the populist apporach was pushed. While I think that the state should have the ability to pull back their senators after a 2/3 vote of the state government, term limits would be the best way to keep bad senators from stinking up the hill for long periods. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2010-02-10 17:24 |
| #4 I suggest the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, then the Federalist Papers. If anything can help, that's it. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-02-10 17:01 |
| #3 Some day I'll read The Federalist Papers. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-02-10 16:56 |
| #2 I vaguely remember some really good reasons to take selection of Senators away the state legislatures, which was the reason for the 17th amendment. The electorate has always had the power of term limits. Adding more regulations on top of that is superfluous. I keep hoping that eventually the electorate will suffer enough to take the government back, but some days I'm not as optimistic as others. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-02-10 16:56 |
| #1 Don't get the anti-federalist in the title. This sounds more federalist to me. I've often thought that the old way might be a better curb on Washington. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2010-02-10 16:52 |