So, we’ve got an administration upheaval in Washington. A new President-elect is heading into the White House and he’s bringing a new leadership team. As is traditional, he is choosing from those who helped him along the way to his victory—and in some cases those who opposed him as well. One result is a number of vacated seats in the US Senate, including his own. Since “advise and consent” is one of the particular powers of the Senate, it is critical that the President’s party have control of that august body. They do now and they will after replacements are made.
At issue, however, is the policy in most states of gubernatorial appointment of an interim replacement until the next election. Since incumbency, even for an appointee, is virtual assurance of fund-raising prowess, name-recognition, and re-election, it is a dead certainty that appointees will lock up the seats when the next election rolls around.
Two issues are stirring the national pot, but you can be sure there will be other local outcries as well. Obama’s seat in Illinois and Hillary Clinton’s in New York have already caught the eye of the media, the pundits and the blogosphere. Many express outrage that the democratic process is side-stepped by the appointment process.
Why is it not mentioned that APPOINTMENT of Senators was the original intent of the Founders? Look it up. The Constitution specifies that US Senators will be appointed by the legislatures of the states, not popularly elected. The idea was to gain a more experienced, better qualified, more mature, and less populist membership to the upper house of the legislature. It also cemented the elitism of the period into the new structure of government.
It apparently served us quite well for the first 126 years of our republic. No Senator was popularly elected until ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913. We’ve actually got more time logged with appointed Senators than elected ones!
Maybe the old ways were better!
No comments:
Post a Comment