17th Amendment
The 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1913, established the direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. Prior to this amendment, senators were chosen by state legislatures. The amendment aimed to reduce corruption and increase democratic representation by giving citizens a direct voice in the selection of their senators.
3 Key excerpts on "17th Amendment"
- Ellis Cose(Author)
- 2020(Publication Date)
- Amistad(Publisher)
...The Baltimore Sun editorialized against Sutherland’s gambit, arguing, “This was not proposed as a serious attempt to test the constitutionality of these laws, but was merely a device to force Southern Senators to vote against the resolution for direct election.” The measure was also amended—this time by Kansas Republican senator Joseph Bristow—to provide for a degree of federal supervision. The new bill, which passed the Senate in May 1912, mandated that the “times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislatures thereof, but the congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators.” The controversial Senate revision was accepted by the House, despite the grumbling of southern legislators. On May 13 the House passed the measure by a vote of 237–39. That next morning, the Atlanta Constitution reported, “Since the first resolution for direct election of senators was introduced in 1826 the house has five times passed such a resolution, but the senate has never yet come to terms with the house.” Finally, the May 13 vote moved the measure to the states. On April 8, 1913, the Connecticut legislature became the thirty-sixth state to approve the resolution, ensuring its enactment as the Seventeenth Amendment. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan used four pens to formally sign the amendment—one for William, another for Jennings, another for Bryan, and the fourth for the date. “I am sincerely glad that the amendment has been ratified so promptly,” declared President Woodrow Wilson, “and a reform so long fought for is at last accomplished.” William E. Borah, a Republican from Idaho who had introduced the resolution in the Senate, predicted, “It will do away with deadlocks and scandals in State Legislatures, and will remove the corrupting influences that have done so much to destroy the confidence of people in the Legislatures...
eBook - ePubEngineering Constitutional Change
A Comparative Perspective on Europe, Canada and the USA
- Xenophon Contiades, Xenophon Contiades(Authors)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...V of the Constitution articulated remain unamended. In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment provided that the people, rather than state legislatures, would choose Senators, whose approval is needed to propose amendments. This made the process more responsive to popular wishes, but it otherwise remains unchanged. Especially during periods of American history in which no amendments were adopted, critics have expressed concern that the process is too difficult 15 and that it gives minorities too much power to adopt needed changes, but such criticisms are often muted in times of successful constitutional change. A short history of revisions 16 The Bill of Rights James Madison introduced a Bill of Rights in the first Congress. Although Madison, who had not advocated such a bill at the Constitutional Convention, seems genuinely to have embraced some of Jefferson’s arguments for such a bill, he also sought to take the initiative away from those who might either use such a Bill of Rights to reduce federal powers or against those who sought a second Constitutional Convention that might undo the work of the first. 17 In 1791, the states ratified 10 of 12 proposed amendments (the other two dealt with structural matters). The provisions of this national Bill of Rights focus on individual rights and are more prescriptive than precatory, approaching the language of Biblical commands. Congress accepted the arguments of Connecticut’s Roger Sherman over Virginia’s James Madison and added amendments to the end of the document rather than integrating them into the text...
eBook - ePubThe United States Supreme Court
A political and legal analysis, second edition
- Robert J. McKeever(Author)
- 2016(Publication Date)
- Manchester University Press(Publisher)
...As we have seen, a majority of the public believes it acts from political and policy motives, and increasingly fewer people believe it is doing a good job. It may well be the case that the Supreme Court is losing a significant part of its symbolic power and its distinctive claim on the admiration of the American people. Updating the constitution As long as the Supreme Court retains its role as the prime legitimator of political change in the United States, it will effectively be responsible for updating the Constitution. Although this is sometimes derided as the ‘unjudicial’ task of ‘keeping the Constitution in tune with the times’, it is in fact a serious and important role. In theory, the Constitution may be amended to take account of political and social change through the provisions of Article V. These provisions, however, are so unwieldy and time-consuming that they can only be infrequently implemented. Moreover, because constitutional amendments require the approval of two-thirds of the members of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the legislatures of the fifty States, the amendment process can easily be blocked by quite small minorities. It is little wonder, then, that there have been only twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution since 1789. During the same period, however, American society has fundamentally changed and its political, economic and social needs along with it. In particular, the role of government has changed with the acquisition of vast new responsibilities undreamt of by those who wrote the Constitution in the eighteenth century. The Constitution, therefore, must be flexible to meet changing times and needs...
