Mr. Burris Heads to the Supreme Court
Ricochet member Frozen Chosen made the wise suggestion the other day of abolishing the 17th Amendment, which provides for the popular election of senators. Well, here's a perfect example of 17th Amendment mischief that could have been avoided.
Because of some odd litigation involving the 17th Amendment's requirements for filling vacancies, Illinois has to hold two Senate elections this November. There's the regular election for the full six-year term, the winner of which will take office in January. But the courts say that Illinois also has to hold a special election to fill the remaining 2+ months of Obama's term, i.e., from election day (November) until January.
Burris, who isn't running for the full term has for some reason decided that it is vitally important that he stay in office for those last two months. But he's not on the special election ballot. And so he's trying to enjoin the special election, and he's taking his case to the Supreme Court and from there, I suppose, right on up to Cloud-Cuckoo Land. What's going on? Does he have any particular goal other than embarrassing Illinois Democrats? Doesn't Burris want some time off for the holidays?
It's fun to watch, but now I'm really persuaded by Frozen's suggestion to return to the original concept of having state legislatures appoint senators.
- Comment (11)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Mr. Burris Heads to the Supreme Court
Yes. The 17th Amendment transformed Senators from servants appointed to serve the interests of their States to Giants who bestride the world.
100 little popinjays who imagine themselves Eagles.
May '10
Re: Mr. Burris Heads to the Supreme Court
I realize that I'm taking a close-in snapshot of a very wide-angle issue here, but absent the 17th Amendment there would have been no Senator Scott Brown. And in a state like South Carolina, our legislature would have never appointed Jim DeMint to the Senate (but I daresay they would be perfectly content with two Lindsey Grahams). My guess is that without the 17th Amendment, the two Senators from South Carolina may very well be Lindsey Graham and John Spratt.
May '10
Re: Mr. Burris Heads to the Supreme Court
There must be something about that Senate Chamber that once installed in there a person cannot bring themselves to leave. Murkowski, now Burris, it's like a cult. They're going to leave fingernail marks in the carpet as they are dragged out.
May '10
Re: Mr. Burris Heads to the Supreme Court
It's the bean soup.
May '10
Re: Mr. Burris Heads to the Supreme Court
I think that direct election of Senators has made the Senate more small-D democratic, and less small-R republican, i.e. brought it closer to the immediate passions of the people in the way the Founders intended the House to be. In addition, I think it has caused Senators to see themselves as national figures rather than creatures of the states that send them to that body, and reduced the importance and influence of state legislatures. This has in turn diluted the Federal character of our Republic.
I am strongly in favor of the repeal of the 17th amendment, even knowing all the mischief that resulted and will result from the power of state legislatures to select Senators. I support anything that can act as a brake on the accumulation of unitary administrative authority by the national government in Washington.
And note that I call it the "national" government: does it any longer deserve the title "Federal"?
Jul '10
Re: Mr. Burris Heads to the Supreme Court
Daniel Frank: I think that direct election of Senators has made the Senate more small-D democratic, and less small-R republican, i.e. brought it closer to the immediate passions of the people in the way the Founders intended the House to be. In addition, I think it has caused Senators to see themselves as national figures rather than creatures of the states that send them to that body, and reduced the importance and influence of state legislatures. This has in turn diluted the Federal character of our Republic.
I am strongly in favor of the repeal of the 17th amendment, even knowing all the mischief that resulted and will result from the power of state legislatures to select Senators. I support anything that can act as a brake on the accumulation of unitary administrative authority by the national government in Washington.
And note that I call it the "national" government: does it any longer deserve the title "Federal"? · Sep 19 at 6:44pm
Very well said.
That's worth a "follow".
Jul '10
Re: Mr. Burris Heads to the Supreme Court
I agree with Daniel. There was a reason that the Founders set up a balance of powers between the body that represented the interests of the whole people and that which represented the interests of the states. I find no compelling argument that those dynamics have changed.
May '10
Re: Mr. Burris Heads to the Supreme Court
Daniel Frank: I think that direct election of Senators has made the Senate more small-D democratic, and less small-R republican, i.e. brought it closer to the immediate passions of the people in the way the Founders intended the House to be. In addition, I think it has caused Senators to see themselves as national figures rather than creatures of the states that send them to that body, and reduced the importance and influence of state legislatures. This has in turn diluted the Federal character of our Republic.
I am strongly in favor of the repeal of the 17th amendment, even knowing all the mischief that resulted and will result from the power of state legislatures to select Senators. I support anything that can act as a brake on the accumulation of unitary administrative authority by the national government in Washington.
And note that I call it the "national" government: does it any longer deserve the title "Federal"?
I'm not sure you can improve on this statement of support for repealing the 17th Amendment. I'm not persuaded yet, but I like the notion that folks may start paying attention when they vote for their state legislators.
Aug '10
Re: Mr. Burris Heads to the Supreme Court
I too would love to see the repel of the 17th amendment and take us just that much closer to the original intent of government. The States have for many years been taking it in the shorts by the feds, most all to the detriment of the People.
Only one step of many that should take place.
Aug '10
Re: Mr. Burris Heads to the Supreme Court
Matthew, I think it would be very difficult to trace how abolition of the 17th amendment would effect things on a senator by senator basis. However, I really don't care if repealing the amendment would make the senate more conservative or more liberal. I only care that it would make our federal system much more sound and closer to the brilliance of the founders.
Given the trajectory of our country since the 17th amendment was passed, I"ll take my chances with the state legislatures.
Sep '10
Re: Mr. Burris Heads to the Supreme Court
Repealing the 17th admendment is not likely but I strongly support doing so. It is the bane of our problems, and cannot be resolved when the same people that obtain office and choose to LIVE their entire lives out in office. Term limits at least should be applied to all elected offices. As for the issues of who would be appointed, well, that would be a long watered down states rights issue. I clearly understand the fear that Gilley states about SC, but we need to stop these lifers now. Thurmond, Byrd, Pelosi, Reid, Rangel, Dodd, are just the tip of this iceberg and we will all go down with the ship if we cannot make the real and needed revisions in the way this government operates. Daniel Frank sums it up nicely. Thanks Daniel.