George Will, from time to time, offers provocative comments criticizing proposals that offend his vision of the original intent of the Constitution's authors. Perhaps due to the short format of the op-ed piece, they tend to be superficial and unsatisfactory in my view -- he has a habit of setting up and plowing over straw men -- but they raise important questions and stimulate thought.
Here's his appraisal of a current effort to ensure the vacancies that occur in the Senate always be filled by an election. He is opposed to an amendment offered by Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold.
In his critique he hits a point we will cover this week in 2301 when we discuss the Constitution's impact on federalism, the relationship between national and state power. Aside from the specific powers and limitations placed in the document, the Great Compromise also had an impact by allowing the states to have control over the Senate. Will's real beef is with the 17th Amendment, which swapped state control for popular elections:
The Framers established election of senators by state legislators, under which system the nation got the Great Triumvirate (Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John Calhoun) and thrived. In 1913, progressives, believing that more, and more direct, democracy is always wonderful, got the 17th Amendment ratified. It stipulates popular election of senators, under which system Wisconsin has elected, among others, Joe McCarthy, as well as Feingold. The 17th Amendment says that when Senate vacancies occur, “the executive authority” of the affected state “shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.” Feingold’s amendment says:
“No person shall be a Senator from a State unless such person has been elected by the people thereof. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.”
It's not hard to detect the hostile attitude towards direct democracy. Certainly the shift had an impact on national power. Nevertheless it's interesting to speculate how the New Deal would have been affected by a Senate composed of members appointed by the states:
Furthermore, grounding the Senate in state legislatures served the structure of federalism. Giving the states an important role in determining the composition of the federal government gave the states power to resist what has happened since 1913 — the progressive (in two senses) reduction of the states to administrative extensions of the federal government. Severing senators from state legislatures, which could monitor and even instruct them, made them more susceptible to influence by nationally organized interest groups based in Washington.
Many of those groups, who preferred one-stop shopping in Washington to currying favors in all the state capitals, campaigned for the 17th Amendment. So did urban political machines, which were then organizing an uninformed electorate swollen by immigrants. Alliances between such interests and senators led to a lengthening of the senators’ tenures. The Framers gave the three political components of the federal government (the House, Senate and presidency) different electors (the people, the state legislatures and the Electoral College as originally intended) to reinforce the principle of separation of powers.
Of course Mr. Will forgets that Madison and other founders wanted a Senate removed from state influence altogether. A balanced federal system was forced on the larger states by smaller states whose influence far exceeded their numbers and who could have killed the entire process if they didn't get what they wanted. Influential founders like Hamilton wanted to get rid of the states as political entities completely -- many wanted to reduce the states to administrative extensions of the federal government.
Whether that would have been a good or bad idea is besides the point, there was debate among the founders regarding the proper degree of control of the national government over the states. This was not a simple creature of the progressive movement.
