Talk:Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 1

About repeal

 * I don't believe that we shouldn't repeal that dumb17th amendment. There's not a reason the STATES were given the power to elect their senators. It's so that the ideas of the states can be represented, and I believe that people involved in state government are usually more in touch with what is happening in politics, especially with the state's matters. While we learn on our news about the big, national events, the state politicians make decisions on their local levels. Senators were originally designed to fight for the state's views, and so were appointed by the states into their positions. With the 17th amendment, you get senators from Arizona who fight for the views of the some of the people of their state, but not the actual STATE. —This unsigned comment was added by 68.2.78.180 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 19 November 2004 (UTC).


 * There are bright people on both sides of the argument, but I favor the status quo for several reasons. One is that there is little guarantee that the problems of the late 19th century with excessive partisanship and corruption wouldn't recur today. It's not mentioned in the article (at least, not yet), but Tennessee suffered such a deadlock as far back as the early 1840's, where the Democrats in the state legislature decided that it would be better to have no representation at all than to have Whig senators in Washington, and for about two years the Tennessee Senate seats were vacant. There are both Democrats and Republicans today who are so partisan that they would probably do likewise, given the opportunity to do so. Look at the U.S. Senate today itself, and see how often that the Republicans have blocked Democratic judicial nominees from even ever coming to a vote, and likewise now the Democrats do this to the Republicans. I could see states again going without Senate representation for years on end. Also, if there was lots of outside big business money and corruption in the late 19th century, are we to assume that somehow there would be less of that today? A third reason would be expressed by Southern Republicans, who know that they tend to do far better in the South at the nationwide and statewide level than they generally do at the local level. Republicans began being competitive for the Senate seats in the South as far back as the 1960s. It is unlikely that there would be any, or more than a handful, of Republican senators from the South even now if not for the 17th Amendment; I'm not saying this to say that Republicans are always right and Democrats always wrong, far from it, but that choice is better than no choice and a two-party system than a one-party system, which is what the South had for 100 years after the Civil War. Another reason could even be added. Back in the 19th century it was commonplace for Senators to resign, with the assumption that once they wanted back in, their old friends in the legislature could easily arrange it for them. (Andrew Jackson is a good/bad example of this.) All of this turnover engendered chaos and a lack of continuity of representation, which can arguably be a good thing at the macro level (term limits) but is generally not at the micro level. It is good for the composition of a legislative body to be stable through an entire "sitting" to the maximuwhat ever!!!!!!!!!

♥♥♥33♥♥m extent practicable due to committee assignments, staffing, and similar considerations. There's no guarantee that this idea of popping in and out of the Senate as it was convenient to do so would appear again, but there is also no guarantee that it wouldn't. Rlquall 15:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe that the 17th amendment was I much needed addition to the Constitution. Whoever wrote that 1st paragraph was hoping this is a perfect world. Sorry to burst your bubble, but its not. There are way too many people who could take advantage of state governments electing our senators and it would use it to steal power. In my opinion, our founding fathers worked too hard to allow deception to have a vote in this country. Also, the author of paragraph 1 accused the people of the state would vote for senators that would protect the views of some people of their state but not the whole state. Question, if the senators only help some of the people, why would the majority of the state vote for them? Seems to me that this amendment has some checks and balances of it’s own. —This unsigned comment was added by 69.39.98.252 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC).


 * First off, I believe that the rigorous application of "one man, one vote" for state legislative elections (not to mention legislative term limits in many states) in the past half-century sufficiently shakes up the dynamic enough that looking back at the time before the ratification of the amendment may not be helpful. As much as money may influence state elections today, the political machines of the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries simply do not exist, if for no other reason than the Progressive Movement that gave us the amendment to begin with.


 * Beyond that, I realize I'm probably elitist for saying this, but consider that the state legislators don't exist in a vacuum; somebody voted for them, and it seems to me that if a people are going to elect a petty, bickering state legislature, then it's reasonable to believe that they would also elect petty, bickering federal senators (like the ones you alluded to when you brought up the modern political climate). While Tennessee may or may not have suffered from not having its share of senators in Washington, considering who the people of Tennessee did elect (i. e. the state legislators responsible for the mess), perhaps it was better for the rest of the union that they were unable to send two of their own to Washington. I like milk and cookies...how about you?


 * In other words, maybe those two empty seats were literally the best possible representation of the state. Guppy313 07:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The tired argument of "excessive partisanship and corruption" is just not true. Rather than repeat what you have heard, do some research of your own or go to those who HAVE done the research. Todd Zywicki of the Mississippi College School of Law studied the history of the Seventeenth Amendment and found that argument to be lacking in anything but scant anecdotal evidence.(See http://mason.gmu.edu/~tzywick2/Cleveland%20State%20Senators.pdf. "Of the 1,180 senators elected from 1789 to 1909, only fifteen were contested due to allegations of corruption, and only seven were actually denied their seats... approximately one-half of one percent of the elections during that period." I think you'll agree that we have had more than that just in the last decade WITH direct election!) Furthermore, the "mass" election of senators has increased the influence of special interests (see the above reference) within and WITHOUT the states' borders while simultaneously decreasing the ability of the legislatures and citizens to influence Congress. Federalist loon (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

On a more pragmatic note, let's look at this sentence: "Constitution.org's own copy of the U.S. Constitution has a note that the Seventeenth Amendment is possibly unconstitutional on the grounds of violating Article V, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution." It's hard to figure out which section this is exactly, since the sections of Article V are not marked. I believe that it's the phrase that states something like no state can lose its senators without its consent. (The idea presumably being that the states that did not ratify the amendment did not consent to the loss of power that the amendment created. There is probably something about the unamendable parts of the constitution here, too, but I don't know what they are.) Someone who knows what they are talking about should fix this, as I am clearly underqualified. 68.6.85.167 03:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone went and explained it. 68.39.174.238 07:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I added Ron Paul to the list of libertarians who want to throw out the 17th Amendment: he talked about this at the Free State Forum in February 2007.

Weasel words?
What are people's thoughts on the last paragraph under "Criticism"? "Some argue..."; "Some even claim..."; "Some people feel..." all sound like weasel words to me. -- Robert (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The article would probably be much better off if the criticism section was removed... unless someone can improve it in some way. It seems like it was merely injected into the article for someone to stump their personal opinion. -Jack Colorado 75.39.171.37 (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well there are sources out there that support the claim that "some" argue, and "claim"., , (just a few). I don't know if the section should be deleted, but know it should be sourced. I'm a bit busy right now, or I'd do it myself. - Jeeny (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Calls for repeal
I added a section entitled "Calls for repeal." It contains a quote from someone who has called for repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment and contains links to articles about repeal, and criticism, of the Amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeal
No, there has not been a lot of discussion for repeal. Only very small percentage. Not significant at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.0.140 (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That sentence in the Introduction refers to a section near the bottom of the article. It doesn't say there's been "a lot of discussion", only that "there have been calls" for its repeal. SMP0328. (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes but the calls are completely negligible. Should we go ahead and add to the Nineteenth Amendment article that there have been calls for its repeal, since prominent crackpot and LSD addict Ann Coulter said in an article a few years back that it should be repealed (because women tend to vote liberal, and therefore aren't smart enough to be allowed to vote)? Just because a few outspoken loonybins say it should be repealed, I don't think it should be given such prominence in the article. You're only propagating the insanity and legitimizing their idiocy. 71.251.166.146 (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You would have a point, except for the fact that Zell Miller was a U.S. Senator who called for the 17th's repeal on the Senate floor within the past 5 years. Seems relevant to me. Foofighter20x (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My point being that for any given piece of legislature or law, you're always going to find people calling for its repeal. Even if there's a "No killing adorable babies" law, there will be idiots trying to repeal it. I don't feel it's appropriate to include such a minority viewpoint, especially since there will always be parties counter to it. Always, without exception. 71.251.166.146 (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your clear dislike of Ann Coulter and those who favor repealing the Seventeenth Amendment notwithstanding, there have been serious calls for that amendment's repeal. Just because someone, like Zell Miller, calls for its repeal doesn't make that person a "loonybin"? That material in the article is sourced and so it remains in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. It's easy to source Ann Coulter and many other conservative talking heads as being against the Nineteenth Amendment, and I could similarly write a whole paragraph in that article as to how there are calls to repeal it. But I won't, because it's incredibly fringe, and would be deleted as insignificant clutter almost immediately anyway. 71.126.0.62 (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The point of that section is to show there are people who oppose the amendment. There's a whole article about those who oppose the Sixteenth Amendment. The people in the Calls for repeal section gave rational expressions for why they believe the amendment should be repealed. They are not fringe, even though you disagree with them. SMP0328. (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Fringe. For purposes of Wikipedia, calling for the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment in and of itself probably would not be considered a "fringe theory." In fact, it's not a "theory" at all; it's just a political position some people might hold. The Wikipedia rules about "fringe theories" deal with things like a theory that "the Moon is made of Green Cheese," or a theory that "the Earth is flat." As another editor noted, Wikipedia even has full blown articles about some fringe theories, where they are notable.

Look at it this way: A theory that the Seventeenth Amendment does not even exist (if there were someone who actually held that theory) would be a fringe theory. However, mentioning in the current article that a minority of people favor repealing the Seventeenth Amendment is a quite different animal, and Wikipedia itself is not saying that the Amendment should be repealed (or that it should remain, either, for that matter). I don't think it would necessarily violate a Wikipedia policy or guideline to mention that some people favor repeal. I fail to see how such a mention would constitute "insignificant clutter." Famspear (talk) 03:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * But some do argue that the 17th Amendment was never properly ratified!   But this particular author claims the 17th Amendment was never properly ratified based on the research of someone else claiming the 16th Amednment was never properly ratified; it is unclear whether this "research" proves that both amendments were never properly ratified, or that they are confusing the two amendments.  --Weazie (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Feingold hearing
Senator Russ Feingold has announced that he, as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, will hold a hearing on whether the Constitution should be amended to eliminate the authority of States to allow gubernatorial appointment of Senators to fill Senate vacancies (Source). That authority comes from the second paragraph of the Seventeenth Amendment. Should this be mentioned in the article? If not now, at what point, if ever, should it be mentioned in the article? SMP0328. (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say put it in. If nothing comes of it, we can just as easily yank it. Foofighter20x (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a reference to the planned hearing in the Calls for repeal section, because Feingold's proposal would repeal the second half of the second paragraph of the Seventeenth Amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy letter...
Is this even worth mentioning? http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-kennedy21-2009aug21,0,3138980.story If so, any visible way to work it into the article? -- Foofighter20x (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More on the same: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/08/21/leaders_cool_to_kennedys_request_to_appoint_interim_senate_successor/ -- Foofighter20x (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

History section is copied verbatim from the senate.gov page
I'm not sure this is a great idea. First, there is no explicit copyright information at senate.gov, so this could be simple plagiarism. Second, there are no sources at all here, and the accuracy is questionable (the senate's own website is likely going to be biased about the value of their election process). --JRavn talk 02:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt there are any copyright problems. What the History section needs is other sourcing. If you have any reliable sources for that section, feel free to add any such source. SMP0328. (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There are several web sites that talk about another piece of the history of the amendment that's not talked about on the senate.gov page (& consequently not here either)--that, by 1910, 31 states had called for a new constitutional convention to hopefully work around how Congress wasn't addressing the issue itself. This was one short of what was required by Article V of the Constitution as an alternate way for new amendments to get proposed (beside Congress proposing amendments). From West's Encyclopedia of American Law at http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-xvii-to-the-u-s-constitution. Also the Constitutional Rights Foundation at http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/do-we-need-a-new-constitutional-convention.html.

I haven't yet learned how to do the footnoting that's part of Wikipedia's style, but perhaps someone would be up for adding this detail? Snowden666 (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Read this. SMP0328. (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Snowden666 (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Complete repeal vs. repeal
Minor issue, but re: this edit - "complete" is redundant here. "Bob advocates repeal of the 17th amendment" unambiguously means that Bob wants to, well, repeal the amendment. To express the desire to repeal a single provision, that needs to be specified - "Feingold advocates repeal of the 17th amendment" is clearly incorrect, while "Feingold advocates modification of the gubernatorial appointment clause of the 17th amendment" is correct (and the header for that section does indeed indicate it's just about the gubernatorial appointment issue). So I don't see why "complete" adds anything - it would only make sense if the amendment as a whole could somehow be scaled up or down, rather than on a provision-by-provision basis, and there existed a separate movement to, say, reduce the amendment by half. Whatever that would mean. In any case, that doesn't apply here. SnowFire (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not redundant. The word "complete" is meant to distinguish the section at issue from the section that's about those who do not want the entire amendment repealed, merely one provision of it. It's like if a speaker said "Bill expressly said he wants the job done by Friday." The statement "Bill said he wants the job done by Friday" would likely be taken to have the same meaning. The word "expressly" would be used by the speaker to make sure others did not think he was claiming that the deadline was merely implicit in what Bill had said. Because the article speaks of those who want a partial repeal of the amendment, it is reasonable (not redundant) to use the word "complete" in the title of the section at issue. SMP0328. (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not really. The example sentence you use is "want" which is unclear about the "strength" of the wanting, so intensifiers are appropriate. "Repeal" already means "scrub the law off the books entirely" with no modification. "Complete Repeal" = "Repeal." This would be true even if there were groups advocating a "partial repeal"...


 * ...and I'm not even sure if the current phrasing about Feingold and using the word "repeal" is correct. If you examine the linked refs - http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.J.RES.7: - they don't use the word "repeal" at all. For sure, it modifies the procedure described in the 17th amendment, but now that I look I think that section should be entitled "Proposals to remove gubernatorial appointment option." Further, if you look at Feingold's comments, he phrases it almost as "strengthening" the 17th amendment rather than rolling it back - " These cases have simply confirmed my longstanding view that Senate appointments by state governors are an unfortunate relic of the pre-17th Amendment era, when state legislatures elected U.S. Senators." ( http://feingold.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=307525 ) So I don't think the gubernatorial appointment issue really qualifies as close to a "partial repeal" or the like to be distinguished against. SnowFire (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Senator Feingold believes he will strengthen the purpose of the Seventeenth Amendment by repealing the provision therein that authorizes each State legislature to authorize its governor to make such appointments. It is a form of repeal, because that provision would no longer be in effect if Feingold's proposal became a part of the Constitution. In the end, you and I may not need the word "completely". For others, such a word may be needed so that the meanings of those sections are clear. What's the harm in having that word be there for those people? SMP0328. (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Except that, the more I look at it, the more I'm convinced that's not even a good description of Feingold's proposed amendment which mentions the 17th nowhere in it. If we're going to talk about what the "common reader" would perceive rather than precise meanings... Feingold is seeking to expand the number of popular elections for Senate and thinks they're a good idea. Advocates of repeal want no popular elections, considering them a problem. They are going in different directions, in other words. The current phrasing, if anything, makes them look too similar when the motive is actually quite different.


 * Anyway, I don't think "repeal" is unclear at all. The prose immediately confirms that the movement in general favors a simple repeal of the entire amendment, so yeah, I really don't see the benefit in adding "complete," and it might even misleadingly imply that Feingold is in fact supporting a partial repeal, which isn't really the case. I'll take another shot at editing it, but want to grab a third opinion otherwise? Sounds like we might just go in circles on this. SnowFire (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There not "movements", so I reverted your changes. The Tea Parties and the Anti-War protesters are movements; repeal hasn't gotten that big. Feingold wants to repeal the part of the Seventeenth Amendment that authorizes each State legislature to allow its governor to make such appointments. That's what his proposal would do. People like Zell Miller want to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment entirely. I'm open to using a different word than "complete" (e.g., "entirely" or "whole"), but, because of Feingold's proposal, simply saying "repeal" is not clear. SMP0328. (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ...and I've already explained why Feingold is proposing a change not a repeal. Technically if they repealed just that entire paragraph, then what to do in case of vacancies would be left to the legislature, which is not the case. ("And if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.") Feingold is proposing modifying the procedure to use a popular election.


 * And "complete" just makes it sound like the back of a pamphlet. It adds nothing. "Movements" sounds better than "calls" which sounds far too ephemeral. That said, would "Advocacy" be a good stand-in? I don't normally revert war but I feel very strongly upon research that this is a more accurate phrasing, with the old section titles actively misleading. SnowFire (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Advocacy" is fine. I slightly changed the section titles to reflect "for" what those people are advocating. I still believe I'm right, but Wikipedia is about reaching consensus, not edit warring. SMP0328. (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me. SnowFire (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent change
SMP: More nitpicks, delayed response I know. I feel that "did not ratify" is the standard in other Amendment articles, and is the correct phrasing here. Amendments require a 3/4 majority of all states; there is no way to "abstain" and not be counted. "Neither ratified nor rejected" gives the wrong impression, because for controversial amendments a legislature that is opposed to the Amendment will generally just not bring it to a vote and thus reject the Amendment de facto. That phrasing implies there was no rejection, but usually there really was such a rejection. (An actual vote that gets rejected either means that the legislature is posturing, or else there was a last-minute shift in voting intentions.) It's rather similar to a pocket veto, which definitely *is* in fact a veto, just a quiet one.

Re "small" movement to repeal - well, this is more for foreigners who might get the wrong impression that this was a major issue in American politics, because it wasn't. I want to make clear that until recently this was a *very* niche movement that was going nowhere fast. The single article in the National Review referenced seems to be the most the mainstream media paid attention to it pre 2010. This has changed in 2010 though the odds of such a repeal going anywhere are still pretty long as it stands. SnowFire (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving the article.
The article as a whole, especially the "History" and "Effect" sections could use more citations. Obviously, much of this information is historical fact, but who's to say an editor has not been exactly accurate without the safety net of an alternative source to back him or her up?

The "Advocacy for Repeal" section needs more information. This section could go into more depth and give more examples and reasons for such a movement. It could also try to provide information analyzing actual public opinion and the amount of support this movement really has.

The "Proposed Amendment" section should offer the text of said amendment and should go into more detail as to what exactly happened and the results of the proposed amendment, as it currently is a terse few lines ending without resolution.

Jtaylorjohnson (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the need for more citations in the History and Effect sections.

The "Proposal and Ratification" section could use more detail regarding the politics and popular arguments for and against the acceptance of the 17th Amendment at the time of ratification.

I also feel that the "Direct Elections Held in the States" section of the article is somewhat vague and some of the wording and layout is quite confusing. If the two columns are indeed supposed to be a differentiation I think a different format would really help to make it clear.

The "Proposed Amendment" section needs the text of the Amendment in addition to up to date information about the resolution of that proposed amendment. As it stands the section seems to be a bit out of date.

Jcheva2 (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

'History' subtitles and paragraphing
The 'History' section went over a screen in unbroken text, without any identifying subtitles. Some visual relief was provided by breaking up paragraphs into one sentence spacing. Instead, I added subtitles to explain the course of the narrative at a glance, and tightened up the paragraphing. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Argument for nullification
Needed - section on the validity of the amendment -

There is a strong argument (iron-clad, IMHO) that the 17th Amendment was never properly ratified. Article V of the Constitution spells out how the Constitution may and may not be amended. One of the prohibitions is, "No State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." At the time, "State" meant a sovereign government, like France or Germany. Legally it still does. The Founders always made a sharp distinction between the States in the union and "the People" who live within the jurisdictions of a States. The House was intended to represent the People, and the Senate was to represent the States. The 17th Amendment deprives all the States of suffrage in the Senate, and gives it to the People instead. Therefore, according to the rules for amending the Constitution, every State had to consent in order for the amendment to be valid. Not all did.

The question is not moot. Many States are currently passing laws nullifying federal laws that the State legislatures deem unconstitutional. It is not inconceivable that some State legislature will one day appoint a Senator and skip the popular election. What happens then? Jive Dadson (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * All serious points that deserve an answer.


 * The equal vote enjoyed by every state is two senators. They each are assigned to one of three classes, and each class stands for election every six years. The classes are staggered so that approximately one-third of the Senate goes to the people every two years. Even if a popular President carries all Senators up for election, two-thirds are not necessarily “his boys”, and even they will outlast the president’s term by two years. They don't have to go along all the way on everything.


 * The people in the states consent to allow the Constitution to be modified by a super majority (two-thirds 67%) in the House and in the Senate, AND with a super-super majority (three-fourths, 75%) ratifications among the states. Hey, we still let the state legilatures pick their own system of Presidential Electors, though I would prefer a district plan like ME and NB instead of winner-take-all. But then, my state has real differences geographically. But that State power could be taken away too, if enough people have a problem with it.


 * The 17th Amendment speaks to the method of Senate selection. The people of the United States suffered corrupt Senators for a long time, elected in legislatures bought off by payroll jobs, “retainers” for the lawyers, and outright bribes. The people are sovereign. They may alter their government in any way “as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” In a way, we didn’t want out-of-state monopolies picking our crooks, we wanted to pick our own. (No disrespect intended personally, if you are a legislator.)


 * You will see the division between the inalienable people’s ‘rights’ and the delegated government ‘powers’ alright. For philosophy, I pick John Locke over William Blackstone, but their peeps are still having it out. If you are not buying this argument by the end, check out Blackstone for your side. The Virginian, St. George Tucker's 1803 edition is online.
 * (1) The Declaration says all “just powers” of government comes from the consent of the people, and they have the right to alter their governments any way they want.
 * (2) The Ninth Amendment says the people have more ‘’’rights’’’ than the Constitution can name. The thing on 'rights' leaves out the states.
 * (3)The Tenth Amendment says the people gave ‘’’power’’’ to the US, then the states (less the Constitution), respectively, and if they don’t give up anything, they still have it.
 * (4) the Declaration says the people have a right, and the Constitution Art. V says how it is If they want to change powers in the government, they can take anything back that they want. One amendment said no booze, the next one said yes booze. It doesn’t matter, it’s what the people say will best make their happiness happen. Welcome to democracy.


 * The states are not like Germany or France. Article I, section 10, prohibits States a number of things. The Tenth Amendment incorporates these items. It didn't change a thing.


 * States can’t make treaties, alliances or confederations. They can’t tax imports and when they still (New York was sticking it to Connecticut and New Jersey on pass through trade), all the money had to go to the US Treasury. They can’t make money to pay debts. They can’t keep a standing army or navy without Congressional say so. And in other places, there are a lot of things the US Congress, President and Courts can do to the states. Federalists said up front it wasn't going to be loose like the Dutch or the Swiss Republics.


 * Article VI is pretty clear that the supreme ‘Law of the Land’ is the Constitution, US Congressional law, and US Treaties. The judges of every state swear by oath to support the Constitution, “anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” So basically, the state judges will keep state legislatures in check. Lots of times these confrontations kick off with law suits in both state and local federal district courts at the same time.


 * We quarrel all the time over everything at every level. Not a problem here. First Amendment rights say I get to shoot my mouth off about pretty much anything with pretty much anybody, and I don’t lose my job tomorrow (freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition.) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, a shorter reply: this is a super-fringe argument that shouldn't be added to the article, because few others think that argument is anywhere near "iron-clad". (Verifiablity not truth anyway - WP:V). There are notable people verifiably on the record as saying that the 17th was a bad idea. Claiming that there is even a legal doubt about whether it "works" at all, though? Not really. Let's see your sources and then - *maybe* we can talk about adding a minor footnote to the article.

Longer reply: There were opponents of the 17th at the time, and if a state was seriously concerned, an attorney general could have sued. This didn't happen, and is extremely unlikely to happen now (as again, only a state attorney general would probably have standing to even try). I'm thus inclined to think that the point is moot. Secondly, if the Supreme Court for some reason did agree that the "State" had lost its representation, they certainly didn't lose "equal" representation - they are all represented equally by the People of the State. Or equally not at all. Doesn't matter. As another nitpick, it's not clear that "without consent" requires unanimous ratification. Even under such an interpretation, it's possible that simply by changing their election procedures after the ratification of the amendment by states that didn't ratify themselves, they indicated their consent.

As for your other points, nullification of federal laws is a non-starter and has been since the 1830s. Either a federal law is constitutional, in which case it "wins" because otherwise the entire point of a national government is gone, or it's not, in which case it's inapplicable everywhere. The vast majority of modern "nullification" attempts that aren't sheer political grandstanding are really saying "we think this law is unconstitutional and hope the Supreme Court overturns it." Lastly, a legislature that announced its intent to perform such an electoral swap would first need to modify the election laws of the state, which have all been written to assume / require popular elections for Senate. This means probably getting the governor involved. This would also be complete electoral suicide for all parties who voted for it. Explaining to the electorate why you don't trust them and they don't get to vote anymore, unlike their neighbors in the next state, will be hard. SnowFire (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There have been a number of federal court challenges to the ratification of amendments over the years. These have been tossed out as frivolous by the lower courts and the Supreme Court has generally declined to review them. Where the Supreme Court has ruled on the sufficiency of the ratification of an amendment, it has occasionally pointed out that the question is moot if no one has bothered to challenge the amendment on that issue until decades after its passage, as this generally indicates that even those who most strongly opposed it at the time of its passage found no basis to challenge its propriety. This has been held to be the case by even the most conservative Supreme Court Justices. bd2412  T 04:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Effect of the 1866 law incorrect
Currently written in the 'Election in practice' heading is

"Stockton asserted that the exact method for elections was murky and varied by state. In response, the Congress passed a law in 1866 regulating how and when each state elected Senators. This was the first change in the process of Senatorial elections. While the law helped, there were still deadlocks in some legislatures and accusations of bribery, corruption, and suspicious dealings in some elections"

This is totally backward - the 1866 law didn't help at all. On the contrary, the law drastically exacerbated the problem by prescribing an election proceedure that was prone to gridlock, which was usually broken by bribery and corruption.

Thus, one of the main justifications for the 17th amendment, that the states weren't competent at electing senators in a timely fashion, was in fact caused by federal interference in the election process in the first place. TASTremblay (talk) 06:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thomas J. DiLorenzo is pretty much a political advocate of views that he himself would proclaim are non-mainstream. He's a useful source on what some people who want to repeal the 17th think, but not a neutral source for the general history behind the amendment. SnowFire (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite
The article has been rewritten by a single editor. I want to know what other editors think of this. Should this rewrite have been discussed on this talk page before being implemented? Should it be reverted? Is the rewritten article better than its predecessor? SMP0328. (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm (obviously) in favour of the new version, but then it's mine. Almost all of the last article was either unreferenced or referenced to primary sources - I can't see how the new one can be worse than the old one given that, were we to follow policy, the old one would have been almost entirely blanked. I have run the draft past many editors, albeit not ones specifically interested in this topic, and I invite editors here to comment on and copyedit my new version. Ironholds (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not against what you did, only how you did it. I believe you should have discussed here first, including posting what you planned to do (you could have collapsed it so it wouldn't have taken much space). SMP0328. (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough; I assume that means you think this version is an improvement, then? By all means I post drafts when I think there's some possibility that they're going to be controversial. As said, however, this article was in such a dire state that to act within policy would be to remove most of it - I didn't see there could possibly be a debate over whether this version > old version. Ironholds (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with SMP here: even in an uncontroversial case, a note on the talk page is desirable. I would be fine with a simple one sentence comment asserting what you did here; but the point is that it should come at your initiative, not in response to somebody wondering "what happened?" It's not a huge big deal, but I suspect people would appreciate if you take that step if you run into a similar case in the future. Regardless, nice work on the article. -Pete (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, on closer inspection of one area I know something about, you did remove content that was both important to the article, and properly sourced: the fact that Oregon initiated popular election for U.S. Senators. It is, as you say, a primary source; however, there is nothing controversial about the fact, an it's an important component of the history of the 17th Amendment. It might be worth another look at the original article; if you're going to blank it, I think it's reasonable to expect that you would look closely for things like this. -Pete (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added a little context to the "Reform" section. That § was almost entirely reliant on one source, and it leaves out important context for where the push for the 17th Amendment originated. I know a little about this, but I am certainly not an expert. The Populist Party was tremendously important in all this, they were pushing a platform nationwide that included direct election. That story needs to be incorporated here. Identifying only William Jennings Bryan, an individual, is not sufficient context for how a broad movement was able to take hold. Hopefully others with more expertise and/or access to good sources can help fill out this section. -Pete (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And to reiterate, the version of this article prior to Ironholds' rewrite has a pretty good overview of the forces that drove the political will toward passing the 17th Amendment. Sourcing left much to be desired, but the narrative was more thorough than the present article. Linked here for convenience: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&oldid=450995502#Senate_election_reform Another important element to include would be The Treason of the Senate, a series of articles in the newly-founded magazine Cosmopolitan. -Pete (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent Post-Ratifications of 17th Amendment
Just within the past few days (April 2012), Maryland lawmakers approved BOTH Senate Joint Resolution No. 2 AND House Joint Resolution No. 3 (on separate days) to symbolically post-ratify the 17th Amendment.

On July 1, 2010, Delaware lawmakers approved House Concurrent Resolution No. 30 to symbolically post-ratify the 17th Amendment.

On April 11, 2002, Alabama lawmakers approved House Joint Resolution No. 12 to symbolically post-ratify the 17th Amendment.

In 2011, House Joint Resolution No. 4 (asking Congress to propose a Federal constitutional amendment to REPEAL the 17th Amendment) was DEFEATED in the Wyoming House of Representatives.

In the State of Washington, Senate Joint Memorial No. 8013 was introduced in 2011 requesting a constitutional amendment to again provide that the state legislatures appoint United States Senators. SJM No. 8013 received no further consideration than to be referred to a committee in the Senate of the State of Washington.

In the Georgia General Assembly, House Resolution No. 1130 was introduced in 2012 requesting a constitutional amendment to REPEAL the 17th Amendment. HR No. 1130 was never even considered by the full Georgia House of Representatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Watson (talk • contribs) April 13, 2012

I don't think Maryland has post-ratified the amendment until the governor signs the bill, and the governor did not sign the bill in his 2 May 2012 signing session, though I imagine he will be signing the bill in his 22 May 2012 signing session. I am, however, not a constitutional law attorney (nor an attorney of any sort.) Incremental Improvements (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt a governor's signature is needed to for a State to ratify an amendment (see Leser v. Garnett). SMP0328. (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The first elections
Don't you think there should be mentioned anything about the first elections that was the aim of this amendment? It shouldn't be too hard to find a reference of those elections, one reliable reference seems to be the book on all Congressional elections between 1788-1997 by Michael J. Dubin in the section now removed again./--Danog-76 (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What am I missing here? It looked referenced to me. YBG (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so too --Danog-76 (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * References go after content, not before; your format gave the appearance that large chunks had no citations :). Thanks for adding them - I've tweaked the wording a bit (we don't like "the" in section headings, for example) but it's otherwise good to go. Thanks! Ironholds (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks, it looks good now.--Danog-76 (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Adopting or Adoption or ?
The Effect section currently begins It seems to me that it would read better if changed to one of these: I changed it to the first of these, but SMP0328. promptly (in the words of his comment) "reverted nominalization". I'm not sure why that means that "the adoption" is undesirable. Anyway, I think either of these two options is preferable to the current text, but I'm willing to listen to others' preferences or additional suggestions. YBG (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * With the adopting of the Seventeenth Amendment, the Senate went ...
 * With the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment, the Senate went ...
 * After the Seventeenth Amendment was adopted, the Senate went ...
 * I went with your second proposed change. SMP0328. (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Impact
The "impact" section lists three scholars who criticized the amendment and non supporting it. Unfortunately, I'm not a scholar on the subject--but it seems unlikely that scholarly opinion is universally against this. Assuming that there are pro-17th amendment voices (and given that it's been in the news before, I'm certain they are), they should be fairly reflected in this article. Reyemile (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't find any in academic journals; feel free to include any you can. Ironholds (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The text of this entry is highly tendentious and tends to suggest that there is a deep even split in the scholarly and legal community over the need to "reform or repeal" the Seventeenth Amendment. As a legal scholar, I can say that this is far from accurate. A few figures, largely on the fringe, attribute dreadful effects to popular election of Senators. Most don't agree. "Noted public figures" is a very strange and in effect deceptive locution to designate these few voices. Garrett Epps (talk)


 * - Returning U.S. Senate selection to state legislatures seems to come from an impulse to “restore” federalism, a balance between state and U.S. governments. The rationale is to return to the Articles of Confederation as the “true” union, comprised of fourteen co-equal legislatures, thirteen states and Congress. But the Constitution as now written asserts that the people are sovereign. Each government power is held in trust whether it is assigned to national, state, county, legislature, executive, judiciary, plebiscite or combination.
 * - In the early 20th Century, enough state legislatures abused that trust long enough, harming enough people badly enough, that the People of the United States withdrew the privilege that they had formerly conferred on state legislatures, and instead gave it to the people in the states by direct election. A codeword, or term of art used by the proponents of state legislature selection of U.S. Senators is often “state sovereignty”. But the term "sovereignty" does not apply to a creature of the sovereign people which is a mere legal fiction created for the purposes of their safety and happiness, and sustained only for as long as they choose it.
 * - Any pretense to state sovereignty is lost in 1868 at the 14th Amendment which requires all protections of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights to be extended and applied to state constitution, law and practice. Again, the PEOPLE of the nation, 2/3 of the people represented in the House, 2/3 of the people in states represented in the Senate, and the people represented in 3/4 of the state legislatures, determined that enough state legislatures had harmed enough people badly enough, long enough, to strip the states of the discretion to violate their rights in any case whatsoever. And the sovereign people determined the limits of power for all state legislatures, whether they agreed to it or not; states are not sovereign. Subsequently, that included addressing the state legislature's corruption of U.S. Senators who would not credibly represent the people to their -- sovereign -- satisfaction. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's rather strange. The 17th Amendment is rather uncontroversial, with those advocating against it being a fringe group. Yet the "impact" section of this article leans heavily toward saying it had a negative impact. Unsupported claims like the idea that state legislatures were better able to hold senators accountable than the voters are, get treated as valid undisputed arguments in this article. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * - Seems to me that its almost like what-if history, What if the South had won the Civil War? Or, a variation of writing a novel beginning with Lee winning Gettysburg. Sort of alternative history as entertainment for the moonshine-and-magnolia set.
 * - Which is not to take away from the serious research on federalism that goes on at the Heritage Foundation, nor the scholarly annual reports of the committees found in our contemporary Federalist Society, all worthy ladies and gentlemen, one and all. I'm just not for alternative reality in an article of history.
 * - And relative to the value of the states federalism over parliamentary consolidation, BRAGGING RIGHTS: Reforestation of played out mine fields was tested and proven at Virginia Tech for 20 years before the feds' pointy-headed bureaucrats figured it out that it might be a good idea. Much that is innovative, efficient and beneficial is generated from the states as laboratories of democracy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not just the Impact section that's problematic
It's not just the Impact section. This entire article is suffused with a Tea Party "States Rights" POV that the 17th Amendment was questionable from the beginning, that it is currently deleterious in effect, that there is "controversy" surrounding it, that there is widespread grassroots agitation towards changing it. Among and within the Tea Party, certainly this is true. Elsewhere, it's not even on the radar.

In the Adoption section, the portrait of Elihu Root gives this caption:
 * Elihu Root, one of only three figures noted to have considered the impact of the Seventeenth Amendment on federalism during the debates over its adoption.

Why are 3 dissenters notable? The way its phrased, the importance its given with his picture and caption, it's like he was the only engineer to argue the Titanic should have had more rugged iron plating but, tragically, he was overruled. And it's interesting that, at the time of the 17th's adoption, when Root was criticizing it, he was a sitting Senator who'd been appointed the "old" way; it's a little self-serving of him to criticize the new method, one which added no small complication to his reelection prospects.

Bybee is a particularly partisan choice as an authority and he's used extensively. This entire article is a article from Bybee's POV, and it oddly even puts his portrait in the article, also. Why?

I don't get how this has GA status. This article should be fully overhauled such that it's about the 17th amendment itself and what led up to it, instead of what a doomed amendment it is and how it should be changed. Certainly the POV of the historical actors themselves should be portrayed, but one POV should not seep into the article itself, such that I can easily tell the article disapproves of the 17th amendment (or that Bybee does, which is the same problem).

The last sentence could read as a bullet point on a Tea Party website:
 * The Tea Party movement has been at the forefront of the campaign to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment entirely, arguing that it would protect states' rights and reduce the power of the Federal government.

--Petzl (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I entirely agree that the article is problematic at the moment, although I'm not 100% sure on how to fix it. The problem is precisely what you already note: the 17th amendment is blandly non-controversial to almost everybody, so the only people who bother writing about it are the ones with an axe to grind.  There's not much glory to be gained in writing a law review article stating "Yup, the 17th amendment was pretty sensible" and no pressure groups.  (Related: The Onion's fine article Third Amendment Rights Group Celebrates Another Successful Year.)  So I think User:Ironholds' comment about being unable to find much support for the 17th amendment is accurate.


 * I'd suggest trying to find some way to stick an explicit warning sign near the top of the analysis if we can find some reference on "The 17th amendment is almost universally accepted as a good idea and a proper amendment to the Constitution," and then treat the rest as the equivalent of "and here's this fringe other view." But I'd be wary of just removing large swathes of it, because even if it is fringe, it's well-referenced. SnowFire (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Kris Kobach wrote an article for the Yale Law Journal, Rethinking Article V: Term Limits and the Seventeenth and Nineteenth Amendments, 103 Yale L.J. 1971 (1994), which describes the process by which the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in generally positive terms. The article notes that before the amendment was even introduced, most states had already effectively achieved direct election of Senators by statute or by amendment of state constitutions - and indeed, this change is what made it possible for the Senate to ratify the amendment. Kobach notes:
 * Although the House of Representatives responded favorably to early calls for a constitutional amendment, the Senate was firmly opposed to the idea of replacing selection by state legislatures with popular election. Senators who had successfully attained national office through masterful maneuvering among state political hacks were disinclined to see if they could do as well stumping before the voters. For most of the nineteenth century, resolutions calling for the proposal of a constitutional amendment died quietly in committee.
 * Somewhat contrary to Bybee, Kobach also says that "Numerous cases of senatorial corruption involving bribery greatly impaired the reputation of the chamber", and that "Often, this political trench warfare in the state legislatures could be resolved only through the selection of a compromise candidate who was less fit for office than either of the party favorites". Another piece linked here, Ilya Somin, The Tea Party Movement and Popular Constitutionalism, 105 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 300 (2011), is directly critical of Bybee's constitutional propositions. Cheers! bd2412  T 17:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Awesome; thanks for providing those! Any chance you could email me the Kobach article? I'll incorporate them into the text :). Ironholds (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and email me. bd2412  T 20:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done :). Ironholds (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And done. bd2412  T 00:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks :). I'm not sure when I'll be able to get to this (work is hectic) but I'll try to fit it in next weekend. Ironholds (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Any luck in giving a shot at the rework, Ironholds? The article still gives far too much prominence to the "The 17th Amendment is evil" strain IMHO, but would still defer to people who've studied the sources more closely. SnowFire (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My time is being sucked up by work, I'm afraid :(. I'm currently working on seven different projects :/. I'd put out a request for anyone who is willing to do the rewrite themselves to do so. Ironholds (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"Table" as a term of art
A sourced account of bills proposing Amendment to the Constitution as "tabled" had been rewritten to be "introduced" with the rationale that "tabled" is used in British legislative practice, not U.S. But tabling is not introducing, it is ending the forward progress of a bill in that session according to Roberts Rules of Order and the Rules of the United States Senate. "Tabled" should be restored to the narrative. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To clear up confusion regarding Britain vs. United States usage: according to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (10th edition, p. 209), the British meaning of "tabled" in parliamentary procedure refers to "the introduction of a proposed resolution or document to be placed among items of business waiting to be approved." So "tabled" may mean "introduced" in Britain. However, it doesn't in the United States.
 * So what does "tabled" mean in United States parliamentary procedure? According to RRONR (10th edition, pp. 204, 209), "tabled" in the United States does not refer to the end of a bill's forward progress, as suggested above; it refers to a motion to "lay on the table", which halts the immediate consideration of a motion but does not kill it. Thus, it is improper to use "tabled" in this article to refer to the death of proposed constitutional amendments in Congress. In this article, it is clear from context that the various other proposed constitutional amendments to create direct elections that were introduced in Congress did not pass, so "introduced" is fine. (Additionally, the term "tabled" is parliamentary jargon that may not be accessible to lay readers, and thus its use should be avoided where feasible or explained.) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As a matter of parliamentary practice in the United States, laying on the table, tabling, is where bills or other items brought up on the floor go where they are never again to be taken up, they are not to be referred to committee for further investigation or consideration, as in petitions on restriction of slavery read aloud by John Quincy Adams on the House floor. It is legislatively akin to a pocket veto by the president as it is understood in U.S. high school civics and government curricula.


 * Agreed "introduced" is appropriate for this narrative with an international readership, since a bill must be introduced before it can be tabled. It just does not convey the fact that the bills never even went to committee for hearings or consideration each session they were introduced because of a procedural maneuver, "introduced" does not function in the same way that the source explained as "tabled" --- As a matter of historical practice in the events under discussion, rather than as a matter of theoretical possibilities never acted upon. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Two questions... do you know of any sources that say "lay on the table" refers to where bills go "where they are never again to be taken up"? That appears to contradict RRONR (10th ed.), which states on page 61: "If there is reason for the assembly to lay the main motion aside temporarily without setting a time resuming its consideration, but with the provision that it can be taken up again whenever a majority so decides, this can be proposed by the motion Lay on the Table." Also, are there any sources saying that these other proposed constitutional amendments were never referred to committee? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The British meaning of "tabled" in parliamentary procedure is the introduction of a bill, so "tabled" can mean "introduced" in Britain. However, in the United States, "tabling" is in practice a parliamentary maneuver to kill a bill. The reformers did not "table" the bill for direct election of U.S. Senators, they "introduced" it. John Paul Parks is correct in his article edit. I'm not sure how we got sideways on this. I stand corrected. Thanks.


 * The bills that a previous editor referenced which reformers introduced constitutional amendments in 1828, 1829, and 1855 went into chambers procedurally dominated by Southern senators as noted tangentially in the Zywicki (1994) source cited here, they tabled various reform petitions, see John Quincy Adams for a quick intro to U.S. legislative history of the time. The early reformers for direct election of U.S. Senators would have been 19th century Jacksonian reformers, the same who advocated direct election of Presidential Electors. This article does not develop a narrative addressing the early movement, but focuses on the Progressives in the early 20th century. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

'Calls for Reform' addition
Two paragraphs are added in the “Calls for reform” section, relating developments in the Senate. They are taken from “The American Senate: an insider’s history” by Neil MacNeil of PBS 'Washington Week' and Richard A. Baker, historian of the U.S. Senate 1975-2009. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Issues section seems unbalanced
In the issues section, we have multiple statements from Zywicki and Bybee about how things that were considered problems at the time weren't really problems. That's fair enough, and the writing itself also seems like a fair presentation of their views. Similarly, in the Effects section, Bybee argues that the amendment ultimately led to the "ignominy" of state legislatures. It seems that modern opponents/skeptics of the seventeenth amendment are featured in this article, while more positive views are not; this seems a bit unbalanced and one-sided. Orser67 (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree - there must be other sources who have written about the amendment. It is striking that only Louisiana and Alabama of the Deep South voted for the amendment, so the other southern state legislatures were likely opponents. It's important to remember the background in the South: At this time there were generally had one-party states, dominated by white Democrats, following their disenfranchisement of most blacks and many poor whites (especially in Alabama), at the turn of the century by new constitutions and discriminatory practices. These actions hollowed out the Republican Party in most states and excluded blacks altogether from the political system. Their legislatures were long dominated by white Democrats from rural areas, who kept power even as populations increased in industrializing cities. (It was not until the late 20th century that many southern state legislatures were forced under court order to redistrict, which under the Constitution they were supposed to have done following every census.) The growing population of Birmingham, AL was among the areas with populations that were long underrepresented in these state legislatures. The rising number of urban populations likely contributed to the state legislators' reluctance to have popular election of US senators, as they would lose some of their illegally maintained power.Parkwells (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

States requesting constitutional convention
This article states that 31 states passed motions for reforms. If that were so, there would have been a convention in 1911. There were only 46 states in the Union in 1911, so only 31 states were required to request a convention.

Based on the Wiki article, "List of state applications for an Article V Convention", I find 27 total states, by actual count. Some applied in multiple years, which may account for the overage.

In the very next sentence, something confuses me: "By 1912, 239 political parties at both the state and national level had pledged some form of direct election..." Please tell me, which 239 political parties does this refer to? 107.219.156.124 (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See this part of the article. While 27 State legislatures applied for an Article V Convention, 31 called for an amendment that would provide for the popular election of Senators. SMP0328. (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Date?
Reading this, I just noticed that you have to scroll all the way down to ratification to get a listed date of the addition of this amendment. Shouldn't that be somewhere near the top? 24.106.184.123 (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It's right there in the lede, ¶ 2: "The amendment was proposed 62nd Congress in 1912 and became law in 1913 after being ratified by the required 36 state legislatures." (Grammar not quite right, I'll fix that.) TJRC (talk) 07:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now that User:YBG just added that paragraph, after your comment and before mine. TJRC (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But I forgot to say anything here. And thanks for noticing my grammar error. YBG (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably ought to go through all the amendments and make sure they all have a similar sentence or two. YBG (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Original poster here. Thanks for the quick edit! Don't mean to sit here and propose changes I could just make myself, but should dates be in the sidebar for something like this? That is, in the box that says "This article is part of a series"? 76.182.45.5 (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing that the sidebar show dates for all of the amendments? YBG (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I kind of like the idea of an infobox US constitutional amendment template, if there's enough stuff to justify it. I don't know if there's enough data to track to take that into actually being in favor of such a template, though.


 * Let's see, it could have the amendment number, short summary, date proposed, and date ratified. Anything else?  One problem is that a lot of these infoboxen seem to grow, to justify their existence.


 * This should probably be discussed with WikiProject United States Constitution before going too far. If the consensus in that project is dead-set against it, there wouldn't be a lot of point in pursuing it. TJRC (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Infobox constitutional amendment
In light of the discussion above, what would you say to a infobox constitutional amendment along these lines?



Would render as shown here.

TJRC (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of the infobox suggested above. Would this be used instead of, or in addition to the Constitution of the United States of America infobox that is currently found on articles for Amendments to the Constitution? Also, if you plan to use this infobox for other Amendments, I have one suggestion: I would eliminate the "cases" parameter, because there have been dozens (if not hundreds) of landmark cases that have interpreted the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and it gets even more complicated if you consider cases that only interpret one aspect of the Amendment. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've just drafted some docs for this, and for the  parameter, wrote:


 * Right now, there are navboxes for the First, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments (as well as the Sixteenth); but not for the Fourth and Eighth. TJRC (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * if you (or anyone else) want to hack at the template or its documentation, please feel free. I'm continuing to tweak both myself.  The template is here and the doc is here.  I ask that you not delete any parameters, and that we instead discuss them (since it's a chore to recover, and in the meantime will break test cases like the one above and in the docs).   Given the time of year, I think I'll just let this stew for a few weeks, and propose it to WikiProject United States Constitution after the first of the year, so no hurry.  TJRC (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , thanks so much for your hard work on this template. I'm too afraid that I'll break something if I edit the template, so I think I'll stick to simply offering comments at the moment. After thinking it over a little further, I think it might be better to change the "cases" parameter to something like "selected cases" or "notable cases," so that we do not give the false impression that those are the only cases that discuss the Amendment in question. Also, you may be interested to know that there is currently a navigation template for the Fourth Amendment (see Template:US4thAmendment), but it certainly couldn't hurt to pick out a few of the "greatest hits" (e.g. Katz, Terry, etc.) for an infobox at the top of the article. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. "Notable cases" is a great idea, I'll make that change.  Interesting about Template:US4thAmendment... It wasn't in category:Law navigational boxes and is actually not included in Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is why I couldn't find it.  I'll add it.
 * The more I think about this, the more I think of things may be appropriate to add (although I'm wary of content creep here; including things just to justify the box). I just added a citation field, for example (while I know that Wikipedia should not rely on primary sources, having pointers to them is, I think, a very useful feature).  And maybe the other portions of the Constitution that were modified by this Amendment (or other amendments that modified it) would be worth noting.
 * Again, I'll just play with it desultorily for the next couple weeks, then propose it in the WPUSC when I think it's pretty well baked. Thanks for your ideas, and I welcome any others you may have. TJRC (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Founders' intention and the loss of historical awareness
The original purpose of Article I, §3, Clauses 1 and 2 of our Constitution was taught in elementary and secondary schools until just before the end of the 19th century, but was forgotten with the abandonment of the most common text ("A New Catechism") with which it was taught. That intent was not merely to balance states' representation by population and state-entity, as is now taught, but to act as safeguard against the two forms of non-military overthrowal of lawfully constituted government. Examining history from the Classical era to the then-present, the founders discerned that popular vote could be bent to the will of a demagogue in the moment; fanning the fears/anger of the people, he can move them to do in the moment of passion what they would not in most circumstances when calm and reasoning  like giving him extraconstitutional powers which (he falsely promises) he will surrender after the "crisis" is over. By having one representative body of the two (the Senate) elected by the individual States-as-entities through their own upper statehouse, half of the lawmaking power goes to those whom his demagogically encouraged fears-of-the-moment cannot directly control. Likewise, the direct/popular election of the House of Representatives balances the Senate, preventing a permanent professional political class from enacting extraconstitutional, Machiavellian mischief. Sadly, we could probably use these protections just now, as the two major parties' 2016 candidates for President reflected these two possibilities precisely. 167.187.101.240 (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What change do you want made to the article? SMP0328. (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

What are the Electors Mentioned in the 17th Amendment?
Hey all. The word 'elector' appears twice in the 17th Amendment ("The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures."), but the word 'elector' never appears anywhere in the body of this Wikipedia article. That fact seems unusual. Furthermore, I am actually having difficulty understanding what the sentence means at all. What electors are we talking about? What are the qualifications being referred to? Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Elector" is just an old-fashioned synonym for "voter". That sentence means "The voters (for direct election of a Senator) shall be the same group of voters as whatever the state rules for election to their legislature," i.e. it does not set up a special federal rules of voting, but defers to State law - whatever qualifications they set on legislative elections apply to Senatorial elections as well. In the unusual circumstance of there being different rules for a lower branch of a state legislature and a higher branch (I don't believe this is actually true in any states), then it says use the rules for "the most numerous branch" (generally the lower). SnowFire (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, it seems to be the consensus that this sentence refers to the qualifications for voters participating in US Senate elections (see also Talk:United States Electoral College). Now my next question is: are there any reliable sources that say what we are saying? Is there a legal case or a book that talks about the potential ramifications of this sentence? This sentence may not be "important", but I find it unseemly that this sentence is not explained at all in this Wikipedia page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That was the point of the amendment. It was adopted to change the election of Senators from being by State legislatures to being by the people of the States. The amendment says a State's Senators are to be "elected by the people thereof." This is explained in the article with a multitude of sourcing. SMP0328. (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The 'electors' sentence adds special requirements about the nature of voter qualifications that aren't addressed anywhere on this page, right? That is, the words "whatever qualifications they set on legislative elections apply to Senatorial elections as well." does not appear on this Wikipedia page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC) (modified)
 * Here's the sentence I'm looking for (or something like it) in this Wikipedia article: "The 17th Amendment also requires that the voters (electors) qualified to vote in elections for U.S. Senate seats in their state be the same as the voters who meet the qualifications that a state has for voters electing the members of the more numerous house of that state's legislature (usually the state's House of Representatives)." Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, the 17th Amendment is a complicated and messy area, and I am not well qualified to contribute informed discussion. There is lots of information in this book chapter, but not all of it is readable online. I stumbled across some interesting observations re voter qualifications and the 17th Amendment here, but I don't know how valid the observations there are. That is in the context of a discussion about a different, larger matter (a failed proposal for a constitutional amendment re qualifications of electors in all federal elections -- see here), but it is interesting and appears relevant. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The 17th amendment amends Article 1, Section 3, of the Constitution, which deals with the Senate. Art. 1, Sec. 2 deals with the House. The second sentence of the 17th Amendment ("The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.") is the same as the second clause of the first sentence of Art. 1, Sec. 2. So the 17th Amendment is just matching the language already in the constitution. There probably won't be much written about this sentence as it appears in the 17th Amend. because it's just not that interesting, but there has been a lot written about the first sentence of Art 1, Sec 2. See this article p. 262 footnote 89,, Article One of the United States Constitution), and the cases cited in those links. Lev!vich 03:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'm not a lawyer, as must be apparent from some of my comments, and reading that in the first linked source gave me a headache. A possible alternative source might be Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's got some pretty good language at 228-229 (GScholar link)
 * Lev!vich 06:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)