There was insufficient discussion about the governance outcomes repeal would produce, and too much about the political consequences. The Senate was meant to represent the interests of states, which may -- and more importantly, may not -- align with the interests of a state's population. We have the House to represent the people. The popular election of senators means that they are more focused on the same issues as are House members. We don't need both. Since it's adoption, the 17th amendment has produced an ever larger federal government, doing ever more things (much of it without specific constitutional mandate), and ever greater cost, all while turning states into provinces. Repeal would, in my view, restore the autonomy and power of states, and impose some constraint on the growth and reach of the federal government.
The expansion of the Federal government was due to the changes in society and the economy. The Framers could've never anticipated an industrial and inter-connected economy, which required national coordination and direction. Centralisation is a key feature of civilisation; otherwise you'll just become city-states. Basically, think of the Roman Empire vs. the Greek City States. Second, the Framers didn't take into consideration organised political parties. Senators elected by the Legislatures would undoubtedly serve their political parties (as they do now); the difference is that with direct election, there is a greater degree of democracy and accountability. There is no such thing as 'State issues' anymore; most issues require Federal involvement to resolve, along with a centralised taxation scheme to provide public services.
@@cagarustus9867 What a bunch of authoritarian statist bullshit. Why could they have not predicted it when they could clearly see industrialization in Britain and europe? Moreover based on what do you draw your conclusion that a big economy requires centralization of power which has not coordinated it has instead damaged the economy and made it more stagnant. Going by your logic Venezuela and the Soviet union should have been great succeses. They weren't because a couple of central planners cant plan an entire economy better than individuals can plan their own lives unless those central planners are omniscient. There are many economists that disagree with the idea of the economy needing centralization of power to guide the economy. Moreover there nothing wrong with being more like city states because the Federals govenrment primary purpose is supposed to be foreign policy and defence. Decentralization also means that people have more power over their government and laws rather than being ruled by some politicians in a capital city one thousand miles away but I guess apologists of power centralization hate the idea of people controlling their own lives and individual freedoms and rights. This centralization is why trump was elected becaus people feel as if they dont have any control over politicians becaus of this centralization of power. A greater degree of democracy isnt necessarily good which is why the framers had put restrictions on it. America was not intended to be a direct democracy its a Constitutional republic. Moreover what issues are there that only the Federal govenrment can solve? There are only a few of those such as climate change and foreign policy but other than that im not seeing what the states and individuals cant do what the federal government does today. Furthermore many of the public services that the Federal govenrment provides is unconstitutional so income tax is not needed becaus many of those public services shouldn't exist on the federal level.
I'm nearly 29 minutes in and this comment, the first I've read, is more sensible and correct than that over which these elitist numbskulls are fretting.
Good comment. By insulating the Senate from the populace, they were to focus on a different set of issues, and represent state interests through direct ties to the state legislatures. There was some cases of Senators bribing legislatures, hence the 17th Amendment. But there's no evidence this amendment reduced corruption. If anything it increased the money in political elections. Progressive policies tend not to be evaluated on their success.
Mr. Cooke is correct: repeal of the 17th is NOT a panacea. It WILL take time to UN-do the damage done in the last 100 years with the super-sized U.S. gov't that has been stretched far beyond the authorizations in the Constitution.
Complaining about being all men.... Complaining about diversity quotas not being met. This is the new level America is arguing at... If these are our brightest we deserve to fail.......
It’s very sad. What makes it even sadder (even evil) is that these guys are all smarter than that but they know that by dumbing down the actual topic and appealing to people’s feelings is their best move cause our education system has failed our children for many, many decades now (including universities) and this is the level of thought in which kids are being taught now.
Direct taxation of the individual by the federal government needs to be buried at sea along with direct election of Senators. The states were meant to stand between the individual and the federal government and be the guardians of individual liberty, with the understanding that even in the most populous state, it would always be infinitely easier to influence one's state officials than to extract mercy or concern from the faceless federal monolith. Demographic manipulation of governing bodies based on skin color is a childish and unworthy concern upon which to base any such decision.
They havent mentioned the most important distinction: the House and the Senate are supposed to have different constituencies. The House serves the People, the Senate serves the State Government. The 17th Amendment changed that . Now the Senate serves the People just as much as the House does.
Serving/representing all the people in the state rather than just one district, even a few people all the districts of the state, is, can still be a pretty different constituency even if not as great a difference.
Mustn't do the old way because it's "too white". That's what you say when you don't have a real argument. According to Lizza though, it's a "massive" argument. sheesh.
CNN's guy argument is "who are the state legislatures?" That is a distinctly awful argument with a presupposition that DC represents the American people more accurately....Which is obviously baseless.
The reason state elections would be determined by what senator would be elected is due to the ridiculous amount of power the federal government has over states. That would be a less important factor in an election when federalism is restored. The argument that it would not help state elections is a fallacy.
Nasal boy's lack of appreciation for the value of the states and the esteem in which they are held by individual Americans, validated by his beltway based anecdotal experiences, is as contemptuous as it is ill informed and incorrect
exactly. Lizza was proven wrong about a host of things.... towards the top is the illusion that the democrats diminished the role of super delegates. lol.... is he willfully blind???
The moderator made an incorrect statement (approx 16:15) ...about "David's points [showed how] pre-17th was bad for federalism." (?or was David incorrect?) -- The original 'design' ...was... Federalism... with The States (and The People) holding primary sovereignty.
The Yale guy's argument is fairly terrible. It's "State governments haven't been working well...therefore federalism fails." Yet that argument is circular. Why don't state governments function well? Hint...It's the 17th amendment. Federalism is the most efficient form of government for large nations such as ours. In the U.S. we essentially have 50 distinct nations with nearly 50 distinct cultures. You can lump those 50 into regional identities and "nationalities" if you want. The point being, when you have a vast array of distinct cultural identities and desires, a large, expensive, and largely wasteful federal government cannot possibly govern effectively those distinct "nations." The Senate pre-17th ammendmetn in the U.S. functions much like a parliamentary system. The party in power chooses a leader to go and represent the state...in a greater and more perfect mode of function, party affiliation for senators would be abolished as they no longer serve the party platform but the state platform. It indeed keeps the federal government from involving itself in the lives of Americans. Had the states never been stripped of their power, one can easily assume that things like deep state overreach (CIA, FBI, NSA...etc) as well as idiotic laws like the Patriot Act would have never seen the light of day. I'd be curious as to a legitimately good argument for a large and omnipotent federal government... because I have yet to hear one.
As John Adams said: "I believe the States are more than capable of handling internal affairs, while the Federal Government handles foreign affairs." The ONLY exception being the post office and the regulation (meaning to make regular/standardize, not the new meaning of control) of interstate commerce to ensure that one state does not unjustly screw over another state or become a dictatorship/abuse its citizens.
People ratified 17th because they believed it'd be a step towards a more perfect union. To me, the debate today should be whether 17th has worked as intended in a century's time. Talking about repeal sounds like creating a problem rather than solving one.
The whole point of the Senate is to be a more fair and prestigious legislature than the House, which was more based on population and direct representation. The Senate post-17th amendment is just a smaller House with additional powers, falling victim of party politics which then affects how Justices and Executive branch positions are confirmed. It reduced the influence of states and gave more focus to the federal government and 'democracy', yes the government of mob rule.
@@tylere.8436 I can appreciate the aristocratic sentiment. I also don't think repeal is entirely out of the question. The title just rubs me the wrong way, is my main issue here. More politics is fine with me. I want to identify the mob amongst us and make them feel stupid. I don't mind a war of words and ideas, as long as we agree this title is a bad one, and a similar one on the 2nd amendment should never be seen.
This perspective needs to be taken regarding a number of Progressive policies. The 17th Amendment was largely pushed as a means to reduce corruption in politics. Sounds nice. Not sure it worked.
I think we should have all the candidates take a "isidewith" type quiz that covers the issues the candidates are expected to face. Not just the controversial ones. Then have the state legislators take the same quiz. The candidate whose answers best match up the to the state legislators is the one that is elected to Senate office. Vote for the issues and not a name or a party. Quiz answers are anonymous until the results of the election is out. Then all answers are public, state legislator and candidates, for the populace to use in deciding in the next state election cycle (for those who care). The technology exists that makes this feasible. 50 tests (1/state) determine 100 seats and most closely matches the issue important to 7500 state legislators. FOCUS ON THE ISSUES, NOT THE FRIENDSHIPS.
This incessant obsession with the makeup of sex and race in everything in society is destroying us. I couldn’t care less if my state legislature is 100% black and women, if they are representing my views. When someone delves into this point I know they are an ideologue and not a free thinker.
Instead of arguing about the 17th amendment, they should look at the 16th amendment first, and yes it needs to be repealed right away as it is indeed illegal because the 9th and 10th amendments states it clearly in black and white.
Let’s just have a Congress and ditch all the other branches. Claiming to have checks and balances while leaving the most power in the long run at the feet of 9 Supreme count justices is a joke.
Lizza seems to miss the point completely. His take is a bit elite as he wants to tweak laws to affect voter thinking where he thinks it should be. The point should be a stable system that better fulfills the promises of the Constitution.
Without the 17th Amendment, it's likely Trump would have been removed from office. Yes, the GOP would probably have a bigger majority in the Senate but senators would be less beholden to the president (chief fundraiser and chief propagandist), would be removed from electioneering, would be removed the sway of populist sentiment, and therefore less in the hold of confirmation bias or outright denial of facts and could have weighed the evidence much freer from political considerations.
You're not making a whole lot of sense. Trump isn't even a conventional Republican, he's a 90's era business Democrat, who had to run under the GOP because the DNC has taken such a violent swing to the left. Trump was more concerned about Clinton taking Sanders as a VP than anything because his campaign was so similar. If there was no 17th Amendment, Trump either would have won as a Democrat, or wouldn't have even been a thing.
@@mountedpatrolman The Democratic party is way more to the right than when I turned 18 and started voting in 1989. Today's (D) party is centrist/corporatist.
@fishbone3333 By all metrics, the Democratic Party has moved leftwards since the 1990's. Whether its their stances on border policy, homosexual marriage, budgets & spending, ect... the Democrats have moved leftwards. By European standards, they've moved from Centre to Centre-left.
Only watched about 30 minutes. Unless I spaced off and missed it... no mention of the Federal Reserve. Money controls everything. It's all about the money.
There was insufficient discussion about the governance outcomes repeal would produce, and too much about the political consequences. The Senate was meant to represent the interests of states, which may -- and more importantly, may not -- align with the interests of a state's population. We have the House to represent the people. The popular election of senators means that they are more focused on the same issues as are House members. We don't need both. Since it's adoption, the 17th amendment has produced an ever larger federal government, doing ever more things (much of it without specific constitutional mandate), and ever greater cost, all while turning states into provinces. Repeal would, in my view, restore the autonomy and power of states, and impose some constraint on the growth and reach of the federal government.
The expansion of the Federal government was due to the changes in society and the economy. The Framers could've never anticipated an industrial and inter-connected economy, which required national coordination and direction. Centralisation is a key feature of civilisation; otherwise you'll just become city-states. Basically, think of the Roman Empire vs. the Greek City States.
Second, the Framers didn't take into consideration organised political parties. Senators elected by the Legislatures would undoubtedly serve their political parties (as they do now); the difference is that with direct election, there is a greater degree of democracy and accountability. There is no such thing as 'State issues' anymore; most issues require Federal involvement to resolve, along with a centralised taxation scheme to provide public services.
@@cagarustus9867 What a bunch of authoritarian statist bullshit. Why could they have not predicted it when they could clearly see industrialization in Britain and europe? Moreover based on what do you draw your conclusion that a big economy requires centralization of power which has not coordinated it has instead damaged the economy and made it more stagnant. Going by your logic Venezuela and the Soviet union should have been great succeses. They weren't because a couple of central planners cant plan an entire economy better than individuals can plan their own lives unless those central planners are omniscient. There are many economists that disagree with the idea of the economy needing centralization of power to guide the economy. Moreover there nothing wrong with being more like city states because the Federals govenrment primary purpose is supposed to be foreign policy and defence. Decentralization also means that people have more power over their government and laws rather than being ruled by some politicians in a capital city one thousand miles away but I guess apologists of power centralization hate the idea of people controlling their own lives and individual freedoms and rights. This centralization is why trump was elected becaus people feel as if they dont have any control over politicians becaus of this centralization of power.
A greater degree of democracy isnt necessarily good which is why the framers had put restrictions on it. America was not intended to be a direct democracy its a Constitutional republic. Moreover what issues are there that only the Federal govenrment can solve? There are only a few of those such as climate change and foreign policy but other than that im not seeing what the states and individuals cant do what the federal government does today. Furthermore many of the public services that the Federal govenrment provides is unconstitutional so income tax is not needed becaus many of those public services shouldn't exist on the federal level.
Can you recommend someone who does a better job explaining this?
I'm nearly 29 minutes in and this comment, the first I've read, is more sensible and correct than that over which these elitist numbskulls are fretting.
Good comment. By insulating the Senate from the populace, they were to focus on a different set of issues, and represent state interests through direct ties to the state legislatures.
There was some cases of Senators bribing legislatures, hence the 17th Amendment. But there's no evidence this amendment reduced corruption. If anything it increased the money in political elections.
Progressive policies tend not to be evaluated on their success.
Mr. Cooke is correct: repeal of the 17th is NOT a panacea. It WILL take time to UN-do the damage done in the last 100 years with the super-sized U.S. gov't that has been stretched far beyond the authorizations in the Constitution.
The framers were overwhelmingly against the direct election of senators. Don’t worry, these liberals know better than them. Smh
Complaining about being all men....
Complaining about diversity quotas not being met.
This is the new level America is arguing at...
If these are our brightest we deserve to fail.......
It’s very sad. What makes it even sadder (even evil) is that these guys are all smarter than that but they know that by dumbing down the actual topic and appealing to people’s feelings is their best move cause our education system has failed our children for many, many decades now (including universities) and this is the level of thought in which kids are being taught now.
Direct taxation of the individual by the federal government needs to be buried at sea along with direct election of Senators. The states were meant to stand between the individual and the federal government and be the guardians of individual liberty, with the understanding that even in the most populous state, it would always be infinitely easier to influence one's state officials than to extract mercy or concern from the faceless federal monolith.
Demographic manipulation of governing bodies based on skin color is a childish and unworthy concern upon which to base any such decision.
Exactly!
Well said
They havent mentioned the most important distinction: the House and the Senate are supposed to have different constituencies. The House serves the People, the Senate serves the State Government.
The 17th Amendment changed that
.
Now the Senate serves the People just as much as the House does.
Repealing the 17th would really help solve so many of today's problems!
Serving/representing all the people in the state rather than just one district, even a few people all the districts of the state, is, can still be a pretty different constituency even if not as great a difference.
Charles Cooke speaks to the purposes of each chamber per the original intention of the Founding Fathers: House = people; Senate = states
Mustn't do the old way because it's "too white". That's what you say when you don't have a real argument. According to Lizza though, it's a "massive" argument. sheesh.
Charles got it right: More people are focusing their attention on local politics now.
CNN's guy argument is "who are the state legislatures?" That is a distinctly awful argument with a presupposition that DC represents the American people more accurately....Which is obviously baseless.
Nothing in our representative democracy will function well until Gerrymandering is ended, 17th amendment or not
The reason state elections would be determined by what senator would be elected is due to the ridiculous amount of power the federal government has over states. That would be a less important factor in an election when federalism is restored. The argument that it would not help state elections is a fallacy.
Nasal boy's lack of appreciation for the value of the states and the esteem in which they are held by individual Americans, validated by his beltway based anecdotal experiences, is as contemptuous as it is ill informed and incorrect
Charlie Cooke barely got to talk...
Lizza was completely inaccurate. I believe the Cruz type Senator is exactly who the founders had in mind. He needs to brush up on the founders.
exactly. Lizza was proven wrong about a host of things.... towards the top is the illusion that the democrats diminished the role of super delegates. lol.... is he willfully blind???
The moderator made an incorrect statement (approx 16:15) ...about "David's points [showed how] pre-17th was bad for federalism." (?or was David incorrect?) -- The original 'design' ...was... Federalism... with The States (and The People) holding primary sovereignty.
It’s scary how the Republic and Federalism is so critically misunderstood even by those that consider themselves educated.
The Yale guy's argument is fairly terrible. It's "State governments haven't been working well...therefore federalism fails." Yet that argument is circular. Why don't state governments function well? Hint...It's the 17th amendment. Federalism is the most efficient form of government for large nations such as ours. In the U.S. we essentially have 50 distinct nations with nearly 50 distinct cultures. You can lump those 50 into regional identities and "nationalities" if you want. The point being, when you have a vast array of distinct cultural identities and desires, a large, expensive, and largely wasteful federal government cannot possibly govern effectively those distinct "nations."
The Senate pre-17th ammendmetn in the U.S. functions much like a parliamentary system. The party in power chooses a leader to go and represent the state...in a greater and more perfect mode of function, party affiliation for senators would be abolished as they no longer serve the party platform but the state platform. It indeed keeps the federal government from involving itself in the lives of Americans. Had the states never been stripped of their power, one can easily assume that things like deep state overreach (CIA, FBI, NSA...etc) as well as idiotic laws like the Patriot Act would have never seen the light of day.
I'd be curious as to a legitimately good argument for a large and omnipotent federal government... because I have yet to hear one.
As John Adams said:
"I believe the States are more than capable of handling internal affairs, while the Federal Government handles foreign affairs."
The ONLY exception being the post office and the regulation (meaning to make regular/standardize, not the new meaning of control) of interstate commerce to ensure that one state does not unjustly screw over another state or become a dictatorship/abuse its citizens.
People ratified 17th because they believed it'd be a step towards a more perfect union. To me, the debate today should be whether 17th has worked as intended in a century's time. Talking about repeal sounds like creating a problem rather than solving one.
The whole point of the Senate is to be a more fair and prestigious legislature than the House, which was more based on population and direct representation. The Senate post-17th amendment is just a smaller House with additional powers, falling victim of party politics which then affects how Justices and Executive branch positions are confirmed. It reduced the influence of states and gave more focus to the federal government and 'democracy', yes the government of mob rule.
@@tylere.8436 I can appreciate the aristocratic sentiment. I also don't think repeal is entirely out of the question. The title just rubs me the wrong way, is my main issue here.
More politics is fine with me. I want to identify the mob amongst us and make them feel stupid. I don't mind a war of words and ideas, as long as we agree this title is a bad one, and a similar one on the 2nd amendment should never be seen.
This perspective needs to be taken regarding a number of Progressive policies. The 17th Amendment was largely pushed as a means to reduce corruption in politics. Sounds nice. Not sure it worked.
@@Pan_Z Haha, is that sarcasm? Do elaborate on "a number of progressive policies".
Why even mention the gender or race of the people in the State legislator it’s so odd
I think we should have all the candidates take a "isidewith" type quiz that covers the issues the candidates are expected to face. Not just the controversial ones. Then have the state legislators take the same quiz. The candidate whose answers best match up the to the state legislators is the one that is elected to Senate office. Vote for the issues and not a name or a party. Quiz answers are anonymous until the results of the election is out. Then all answers are public, state legislator and candidates, for the populace to use in deciding in the next state election cycle (for those who care). The technology exists that makes this feasible. 50 tests (1/state) determine 100 seats and most closely matches the issue important to 7500 state legislators. FOCUS ON THE ISSUES, NOT THE FRIENDSHIPS.
Is this a joke? He sounds like Ben Shapiro. Dam
ted cruz, wow I can't believe he said that! They should listen and adapt! He is saying what the majority of people want!
🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎 lovely!
This incessant obsession with the makeup of sex and race in everything in society is destroying us. I couldn’t care less if my state legislature is 100% black and women, if they are representing my views. When someone delves into this point I know they are an ideologue and not a free thinker.
Instead of arguing about the 17th amendment, they should look at the 16th amendment first, and yes it needs to be repealed right away as it is indeed illegal because the 9th and 10th amendments states it clearly in black and white.
Let’s just have a Congress and ditch all the other branches.
Claiming to have checks and balances while leaving the most power in the long run at the feet of 9 Supreme count justices is a joke.
Didnt we do that? AOC?
Lizza seems to miss the point completely. His take is a bit elite as he wants to tweak laws to affect voter thinking where he thinks it should be.
The point should be a stable system that better fulfills the promises of the Constitution.
The gender of the speakers has no bearing on the quality of the arguments. 👎🏻 next video
Without the 17th Amendment, it's likely Trump would have been removed from office. Yes, the GOP would probably have a bigger majority in the Senate but senators would be less beholden to the president (chief fundraiser and chief propagandist), would be removed from electioneering, would be removed the sway of populist sentiment, and therefore less in the hold of confirmation bias or outright denial of facts and could have weighed the evidence much freer from political considerations.
You're not making a whole lot of sense. Trump isn't even a conventional Republican, he's a 90's era business Democrat, who had to run under the GOP because the DNC has taken such a violent swing to the left. Trump was more concerned about Clinton taking Sanders as a VP than anything because his campaign was so similar. If there was no 17th Amendment, Trump either would have won as a Democrat, or wouldn't have even been a thing.
@@mountedpatrolman The Democratic party is way more to the right than when I turned 18 and started voting in 1989. Today's (D) party is centrist/corporatist.
@fishbone3333 By all metrics, the Democratic Party has moved leftwards since the 1990's. Whether its their stances on border policy, homosexual marriage, budgets & spending, ect... the Democrats have moved leftwards.
By European standards, they've moved from Centre to Centre-left.
Only watched about 30 minutes. Unless I spaced off and missed it... no mention of the Federal Reserve. Money controls everything. It's all about the money.