After some remarks I gave to an Indianapolis group on Feb. 20 about defending Indiana’s laws, an audience member posed a question about the Constitution's 17th Amendment, which requires direct election of U.S. senators by voters. I replied the 17th Amendment also permits state legislatures to decide their state’s method for nominating the parties' Senate candidates – be it by primary election, state party convention or caucus or legislators themselves – with voters electing the senator in the general election.
Ten weeks later, without further inquiry, The Times published a story and two columns that focused on my observation without understanding the point made, so let me reiterate it.
Public frustration with Washington, D.C., reflected in …show more content…
senators who serve Indiana honorably; it is instead a critique of the current system and the negative impact it has on politics and citizens' perceptions of their government especially when they see the federal government overstepping its bounds.
Under the Constitution, larger-population states receive greater representation in the U.S. House while each state gets two U.S. senators regardless of state size.
Elected from districts having roughly equal populations, House members are closest to the people. To maintain the ability of states to check federal power so it would not abuse the people, the framers intended senators to represent the interests of states as sovereign entities within the federal government.
Senators originally were elected by state legislatures to six-year terms to maintain their accountability to their states and to buffer them against constant political pressures faced by House members. Ratified in 1913 as a reform, the 17th Amendment reassigned the Senate election process from legislators to citizens at large.
While I respect the admirable efforts of Americans of a century ago to expand the reach of democracy, the 17th Amendment unintentionally broke the link between senators and their state government that their offices were designed to
Ten weeks later, without further inquiry, The Times published a story and two columns that focused on my observation without understanding the point made, so let me reiterate it.
Public frustration with Washington, D.C., reflected in …show more content…
senators who serve Indiana honorably; it is instead a critique of the current system and the negative impact it has on politics and citizens' perceptions of their government especially when they see the federal government overstepping its bounds.
Under the Constitution, larger-population states receive greater representation in the U.S. House while each state gets two U.S. senators regardless of state size.
Elected from districts having roughly equal populations, House members are closest to the people. To maintain the ability of states to check federal power so it would not abuse the people, the framers intended senators to represent the interests of states as sovereign entities within the federal government.
Senators originally were elected by state legislatures to six-year terms to maintain their accountability to their states and to buffer them against constant political pressures faced by House members. Ratified in 1913 as a reform, the 17th Amendment reassigned the Senate election process from legislators to citizens at large.
While I respect the admirable efforts of Americans of a century ago to expand the reach of democracy, the 17th Amendment unintentionally broke the link between senators and their state government that their offices were designed to