libertarians: should us senators be elected by the people?

[WalterMitty]

i know that ron paul and all the other libertarians have a great love for the constitution.  i know they really hate the income tax amendment.  i know they long for the good ol' days of freedom (for white landowning males, at least). 

just curious if they support direct elections of us senators...or if it is just junking up the constitution?

[Bono]

No, Senate representation was originally conceived to represent the interests of the states in the federal government, and it is no coincidence that the scope of federal government increased since US Senators started being elected directly. I don't see what is so outrageous about this either.

[Emsworth]

No, Senate representation was originally conceived to represent the interests of the states in the federal government, and it is no coincidence that the scope of federal government increased since US Senators started being elected directly.

Excessive federal intervention occurred during Reconstruction, the Gilded Age, and the so-called Progressive Era, even though the states chose their senators. I would attribute the increase of federal power to the Civil War, rather than the Seventeenth Amendment; the centralizing trend, in other words, was pre-existing.

As to the question: Senators should be chosen by the people. Election by state legislatures led to significant problems; for instance, when the upper and lower houses could not agree on a candidate, the state went unrepresented in the Senate until a compromise could be reached (which could be several years after the vacancy occurred!).

[DownWithTheLeft]

The people should not directly elect their senators.  They should elect people on the STATE level to appoint people to go on to the federal government.  This makes state elections more meaningful and their power more important, therefore, increasing the power of the states.  Direct election of senators is another attack on state's rights.

[John Dibble]

No, but I'm not adamant about it. It would certainly cut down on unfunded mandates, which would be nice. But of course it's not without it's problems, as Emsworth points out.

[??????????]

I support the old system.

[WalterMitty]

okay, let me get this straight...libertarians constantly talk about personal freedom and liberty.  shouldnt people have freedom to directly elect their senators?

also im curious how libertarians feel about the presidential electors selection.  the constitution states they shall be selected by state legislatures (which they still are).  of course now the state legislature respects the popular election results in their state.

should we just stop having presidential elections and have the state legislature appoint electors for us?

[Joe Republic]

okay, let me get this straight...libertarians constantly talk about personal freedom and liberty.  shouldnt people have freedom to directly elect their senators?

The people already had the freedom to choose who they wanted to serve them in the federal government.  It's called the House of Representatives.

The Senate was never meant to be a half-assed clone of the House.

[Emsworth]

okay, let me get this straight...libertarians constantly talk about personal freedom and liberty.  shouldnt people have freedom to directly elect their senators?

(Forgive me for generalizing in this post; I obviously agree that there are several exceptions, but what I say probably applies to the "average" libertarian.)

I don't think that libertarians would include the right to vote under freedom and liberty. The libertarian view is that each person should control his own life to the greatest extent possible, without interfering with the rights of others. Voting, however, entails more than controlling one's own life. When one votes, one indirectly influences the rules and regulations that will control the lives of other people as well. Hence, voting is not necessarily a basic freedom or liberty.

That is not to say that libertarians normally oppose allowing people to vote. Voting and democracy are still considered important, not because they are worthwhile in and of themselves, but because the alternatives are deemed to be worse. In other words, the right to vote is not viewed as an end that is in and of itself important; rather, it is simply a means to an end of a freer society. Any particular restrictions on voting that improve the probability of attaining that end are acceptable; restrictions that do the reverse are not.

The question, therefore, is whether a freer society would result from allowing state legislatures to elect their own senators, or from granting that power to the people themselves. I personally think that the marginal benefit of granting such authority to the legislature is outweighed by the attendant problems and inconveniences, but evidently other libertarians disagree.

Direct election of senators is another attack on state's rights.

What precisely is a state? Geographically, it is a piece of land, but politically, it is something else--it is a group of people. To somehow differentiate between the state and the people that comprise it is, to my mind, fallacious, at least in the present context.

[David S]

Well if we used the old system I'd have two Republican senators instead of two Dems. But for other states it might be the other way around, so how it would affect the makeup of the senate is hard to tell. But the worst constitutional amendment on the books is the 16th which created the income tax. That passed when the senate was elected the old way.

I guess I can't say that things would be better one way or the other.

[Emsworth]

But the worst constitutional amendment on the books is the 16th which created the income tax.

The Sixteenth Amendment had no effect whatsoever, except to clarify what was already implicitly provided in the original Constitution: income taxes are permissible.

[StateBoiler]

Yes. Cause it's in the Constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Yes. Cause it's in the Constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So are you saying the income tax is good because it's an amendment?  How bout prohibition?

[StateBoiler]

Yes. Cause it's in the Constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So are you saying the income tax is good because it's an amendment?  How bout prohibition?

Prohibition was repealed.

The entire premise of libertarianism rests on the Constitution, because it provides the basis for what the government should do. And if at any time, later generations thought that the Constitution should be changed, they could. And in this case, they did.

This is the law. This is the law set out by the Constitution which guides our executive, our legislature, and our courts. It does not matter if it is a bad law, it is in the Constitution, therefore it must be followed. So, therefore senators should be elected by the people, cause that is what the Constitution calls for. If the public thinks it's a bad law, popular pressure will see that the 17th amendment will be overridden, like Prohibition.

[Emsworth]

The entire premise of libertarianism rests on the Constitution, because it provides the basis for what the government should do.

I could not disagree more strongly. The entire premise of libertarianism is, as the name suggests, liberty. If a particular part of the Constitution is harmful to personal liberty, then of course a libertarian would oppose it. What you describe is closer to the premise of the Constitution Party.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think that the original poster was wondering whether state legislatures should take it upon themselves to start electing senators. The whole point of this debate is to determine whether the Seventeenth Amendment was a good idea. To say that the Seventeenth Amendment is a good idea simply because it has been passed is fallacious.

[John Dibble]

okay, let me get this straight...libertarians constantly talk about personal freedom and liberty.  shouldnt people have freedom to directly elect their senators?

As Emsworth said, it's more about voting being a means to an end than a means in and of itself. If we had a dictator who was completely incorruptible, all wise, all knowing, and basically was able to maximize personal liberties without bringing harm, then we wouldn't need democracy - problem is we don't, so we need a system that can bring about as much liberty as possible while creating the least amount of harm. Some libertarians feel that this would involve the state governments still electing Senators.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I'm curious about why you don't use the Shift key!

Anywho, I think the elector system is fine, but does need changes. Maybe distribute the electors by percentage of votes received or something like that.

[David S]

But the worst constitutional amendment on the books is the 16th which created the income tax.

The Sixteenth Amendment had no effect whatsoever, except to clarify what was already implicitly provided in the original Constitution: income taxes are permissible.

Prior to the 16th amendment there was no income tax except for a brief period during the civil war. After the 16th amendment income taxes became the primary source of revenue. So it very definitely had a profound effect.

Constitutional amendments are difficult to pass. Why would government do something so difficult if it was not necessary?

[Emsworth]

Constitutional amendments are difficult to pass. Why would government do something so difficult if it was not necessary?

The establishment clause of the First Amendment does not add anything to the Constitution, for the federal government never had the power to establish a religion in the first place. To an even greater extent, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were utterly redundant, yet they were adopted. Nor is there any new content in the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nevertheless, in all of these cases, amendments were added to make explicit what was previously merely implied.

The Sixteenth Amendment was adopted because the Supreme Court (wrongly) determined that the income tax was a "direct tax," and therefore subject to the apportionment requirement contained in Article I, in Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co. (1895). To overrule this incorrect determination, Congress passed the Sixteenth Amendment. The Court itself later admitted its error:

"[T]he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited ... income taxation ... from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This isn't really a question for Libertarians, it's a question for Federalists.  As far as Libertarianism is concerned, how Senators are elected is unimportant.  However, as an ardent Federalist, I want to see the 17th amendment repealed.

[David S]

Constitutional amendments are difficult to pass. Why would government do something so difficult if it was not necessary?

The establishment clause of the First Amendment does not add anything to the Constitution, for the federal government never had the power to establish a religion in the first place. To an even greater extent, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were utterly redundant, yet they were adopted. Nor is there any new content in the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nevertheless, in all of these cases, amendments were added to make explicit what was previously merely implied.

The Sixteenth Amendment was adopted because the Supreme Court (wrongly) determined that the income tax was a "direct tax," and therefore subject to the apportionment requirement contained in Article I, in Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co. (1895). To overrule this incorrect determination, Congress passed the Sixteenth Amendment. The Court itself later admitted its error:

"[T]he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited ... income taxation ... from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916).

The term "indirect taxation" is not found anywhere in the constitution. In my opinion it was a fiction created by 19th century statists who weren't satisfied with the amount of revenue they were able to get through constitutional means.

[2952-0-0]

Only registered Libertarian Party people should ever be allowed to vote. That way people will not vote themselves big government programs. Perhaps we should be more like China, except instead of Communist Party members choosing the Politburo, it's Libertarians who call all the shots.

[David S]

This isn't really a question for Libertarians, it's a question for Federalists.  As far as Libertarianism is concerned, how Senators are elected is unimportant.  However, as an ardent Federalist, I want to see the 17th amendment repealed.

Ernest I would be interested in hearing your reason for that. As I mentioned I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other, but I might be convinced by a good argument.

[Emsworth]

The term "indirect taxation" is not found anywhere in the constitution. In my opinion it was a fiction created by 19th century statists who weren't satisfied with the amount of revenue they were able to get through constitutional means.

The term "direct tax" appears twice in the original document: once in Art. I, Sec. 2, and once in Art. I, Sec. 9. Both of these clauses impose a special rule on direct taxation: the amount paid by each state should be proportional to its population. No such rule, however, was imposed on other taxes, which we call "indirect taxes" for convenience.

There is more than one reference to the distinction between direct and indirect taxes in the Federalist Papers. In Federalist No. 36, for example, Hamilton writes: "The taxes intended to be comprised under the general denomination of internal taxes may be subdivided into those of the DIRECT and those of the INDIRECT kind" (emphasis in original).

There was also a Supreme Court case about whether a particular tax (a tax on carriages, to be precise) was direct, and therefore subject to the appropriation rule, or indirect, and therefore not subject to any such requirement. (Hylton v. United States.)

The income tax was perfectly constitutional: the first century of constitutional jurisprudence provides numerous precedents in support of the idea. In Pollock, however, the Supreme Court vainly dismissed all of these precedents as a "century of error." The decision, however, was very plainly an activist one. Let us not forget that "conservative" judges are just as capable as "liberal" ones (if not more so) of making activist judgments.

[David S]

The term "indirect taxation" is not found anywhere in the constitution. In my opinion it was a fiction created by 19th century statists who weren't satisfied with the amount of revenue they were able to get through constitutional means.

The term "direct tax" appears twice in the original document: once in Art. I, Sec. 2, and once in Art. I, Sec. 9. Both of these clauses impose a special rule on direct taxation: the amount paid by each state should be proportional to its population. No such rule, however, was imposed on other taxes, which we call "indirect taxes" for convenience.

There is more than one reference to the distinction between direct and indirect taxes in the Federalist Papers. In Federalist No. 36, for example, Hamilton writes: "The taxes intended to be comprised under the general denomination of internal taxes may be subdivided into those of the DIRECT and those of the INDIRECT kind" (emphasis in original).

There was also a Supreme Court case about whether a particular tax (a tax on carriages, to be precise) was direct, and therefore subject to the appropriation rule, or indirect, and therefore not subject to any such requirement. (Hylton v. United States.)

The income tax was perfectly constitutional: the first century of constitutional jurisprudence provides numerous precedents in support of the idea. In Pollock, however, the Supreme Court vainly dismissed all of these precedents as a "century of error." The decision, however, was very plainly an activist one. Let us not forget that "conservative" judges are just as capable as "liberal" ones (if not more so) of making activist judgments.

The constitution provides for Direct taxes ( taxes paid to the federal govt by the states in proportion to their population). It also provides for duties, imposts and excises.  Duties and imposts are tariffs. Excise taxes according to the Law.com dictionary are defined as follows:
excise
n. a tax upon manufacture, sale or for a business license or charter, as distinguished from a tax on real property, income or estates. Sometimes it is redundantly called an excise tax.

As you can see they are not income taxes and are specifically distinguished from income taxes.

The term "indirect tax" does not come from the constitution. It has been used by statists to create something which the constitution does not provide for.
 

[Verily]

But the worst constitutional amendment on the books is the 16th which created the income tax.

The Sixteenth Amendment had no effect whatsoever, except to clarify what was already implicitly provided in the original Constitution: income taxes are permissible.

Prior to the 16th amendment there was no income tax except for a brief period during the civil war. After the 16th amendment income taxes became the primary source of revenue. So it very definitely had a profound effect.

Constitutional amendments are difficult to pass. Why would government do something so difficult if it was not necessary?

Legally, it wasn't necessary. However, it was useful to prevent costly and futile challenges in the Courts.