Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ADB
You think it's a bad thing to have popularly elected senators?  |
The whole purpose of having 2 houses within the Congress was to give 1) the people a direct representative and 2) the States a direct representative.
It was modeled after the British Parliamentary system (which was an expanded Roman System), wherein the common man had representation and the Nobles had representation (House of Commons - plebiscite; and House of Lords - Senators).
Popularly elected Senators are nothing more than another House of Commons.
Contrary to what BlueTrain and others may think, the States (as a body of Government, not the people of the States) no longer have any representation. This nullifies one of the checks and balances that was built into our system.
The manner of electing Senators was originally:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,... Nothing in that Constitutional statement precluded the State legislatures from passing a statute, allowing the people to elect those Senators. Prior to the adoption of the 17th amendment, some (very) few States did exactly that.
We are supposed to be a Republic, with certain democratic under-trappings. By direct election of our Senators, we have stripped the States of their voice in the federal government and moved closer to mob rule (i.e. democracy).