I use to support repealing the seventeenth amendment to the United States Constitution but I have changed my mind upon finding the style and scope of legislation passed by pre seventeenth amendment Senators
Legislation before the seventeenth amendment was passed:
1)Both National Bank bills, National Banking system (1860's till 1913) and eventually the Federal Reserve Act2) The Erdman Act (outlawed "yellow dog" contracts)3) Pure Food and Drug Act,4) Land grants to corrupt railroads5) Sherman Anti trust act6) Alien and Sedition Act
And the list goes on.
Pre seventeenth amendment senators did not give a hoot about states rights if federal power could be used to subject a minority of other states to their states advantage. The major cog that slowed down centralization was an adamant federal judiciary.
Centralization was in no way slowed down by state legislative appointment. If that was the case then Germany should be one of the most decentralized governments on the planet.
The surest way to bring back Federalism is to revive the non-delegation doctrine. Federal Executive Agencies pass more laws per year than all laws passed by congress and signed by the president through out history. And those congressionally created laws include ones that the federal courts struck down.That sheer amount of regulation floods the courts on the state level (because state governments delegate as well) and the Federal courts cannot nullify them since the Supreme Court will not let them due to New Deal case law.
But do not get me wrong I don't think reviving the non-delegation doctrine is going to happen, nor do I believe that present senators are better then they used to be. I just think the focus on repealing the seventeenth as misguided and inneffectual. A politician is a poltician no matter who elects them.
Interesting points, particularly the one about Germany.
Do you still think it would be a net gain if the 17th amendment were repealed?
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
In all honesty I think it would not cause any change. There might be less unfunded mandates that state governments have to provide but beyond that I think repealing the amendment would be to focus alot of time and energy on the wrong issue.
The process of creating law is harder when it has to be introduced in a congressional committee, then voted on the floor and then introduced in another chambers committee, pass any filibuster and both houses have to agree with the exact same wording. Then the president has to sign it .
If all laws were only created in that classic example above their would be less laws and that would enable the courts (if they were inclined) to nullify more of them since they would be able to scrutinize them more since they would not be flooded with regulatory legislation. That is the danger of delegating legislative power, it does not need any sort of coalition process. The Supreme Court in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States and in Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan struck down legislative delegation but the later New Deal court reversed their opinions on it.
After the those later cases allowing delegation the state governments started doing that as well so they could have more "efficent " administrative ability.
Another thing is congress in the late 1800's tried to delegate power by creating the Interstate Commerce Commission but the Federal Judiciary of the time essentially gutted that agency of any power. It was later that the Interstate Commerce Commission gained more power by new legislation (but still pre seventeenth amendment) and that was one of the first examples of a limited form of legislative delegation.
Also the Erdman Act I mentioned earlier was partially nullified by the Supreme Court.
The Pure food and drug act created an early version of the F.D.A but it lacked legislative power. It had to prove that the food or drug in question was dangerous before a trial by jury and even after that the case could be appealed. Nowadays the F.D.A can simply ban a product from the market or modify it without the hassle of trying to prove why it is not safe.
Don't get me wrong the pure food a drug act was stupid but the modern F.D.A is down right moronic.
Perhaps in addition to repealing the 17th, Senatorial terms could be shortened and State Legislatures would be permitted to give their Senators binding instructions and recall their Senators at their pleasure.
I like that idea.
Those ideas would certainly cause a good amount of turnover in the legislature but I still feel that if the majority of states wish for some federal legislation that is at the expense of a minority of states it would still lead to centralization. Especially in todays political climate. That legislation that was passed before the seventeenth amendment was desired by the state legislatures of the senators in question. If you get to look at the correspondence, many of the state legislators were responding to their constituents desires. Such as desires to weaken the railroads etc etc.
I am aware that more and more United States Senators were being elected democratically state by state before the seventeenth amendment but they still did not amount to a big enough majority to get the legislation passed without the majority of state appointed senators. Also most of the legislation I mentioned was passed way before the amount of democratically elected senators was meaningful.
On a side note it is possible that without a seventeenth amendment we would still end up with a popularly elected Senate much in the same manner as the gradual popular election of the President away from the state legislatures appointement of electors.
I think the only way to protect Federalism is by enforcing the classical doctrine of legislative law making which would slow down the all laws and regulations to a refreshing anti modern degree and the most sure fire way to keep the federal government limited on top of the non delegation doctrine is by secession.
Other than that I am afraid that politicians electing politicians doesnt mean much purity.
The best is still to come... Maybe Ron Paul?
No I think it´s hard to discuss this. Every President is/was also a product of his time. So most of them just had not a bigger idea about economics just because economics were not really discoverd as something to think about, yet. Economics was more or less try and error.
I just want to remind Carl Menger, he was maybe one of the first economists to be in close contact to the von Habsburgs. He was the teacher of Kronprinz Rudolph of Austria. Rudolph commited suizide. If his father would have died earlier and Rudoph would have become the Austrian-Hungarian Emperor - WWI would not have happened. So even no rise of Adolf Hitler - meaning no IIWW, either. OK - I know that historians must not think like that!
Mark B.:Perhaps in addition to repealing the 17th, Senatorial terms could be shortened and State Legislatures would be permitted to give their Senators binding instructions and recall their Senators at their pleasure.
The recall idea is nice, but I think shortening the terms and even term limits will just speed up the process of looting.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap