Cultural Changes in the Ratification of Amendment - Term Paper Example

?The Seventeenth Amendment: Cultural Changes Surrounding its Ratification The election of senators through popular vote was initiated around a hundred years ago after the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which allowed public voting both for the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate (Rossum 2). This voting structure was initially disapproved by the Founding Fathers since the House of Representatives were already representing the common people, and electing the Senate members by state legislatives ensured the balance between those elected by popular vote and those who were not dependent on the public’s opinion, as well as to create a body in congress which have no personal attachments to issues raised by the public. During the nation’s early years, this electoral process was effective under a Federalist government, however the need to revise the electoral process with regards to the instatement of the members of the Senate was borne out of the need to further expand democracy, eliminate corruption tied to the election of Senators, and to remove external control over the creation of state legislatures (Neale 3). Also, relying mostly on the votes of the state legislatures caused election deadlocks which prevented the appointment of Senators and subsequently, unfilled senate vacancies for considerable periods at a time (4). This created additional problems with regards to the creation of new laws since the Senate members have longer terms of service than the members of the House of Representatives. Thus, after 124 years of relying on state legislatives on electing Senate members or waiting for the governors to appointment a replacement should a senator leave office, the Seventeenth Amendment was finally ratified on April 8, 1913 which allowed the election of Senators through popular voting (6). The election of Senate members through state legislatives was initially an effective way of protecting the state and its powers from the expansion of the federalist government, and to restrain possibilities of promoting self-interest through legislative bodies (Rossum 68). In addition, there is reliance on the solidarity of the constitution since there is a need to secure both the public good and the people’s rights from opposition and tyranny of the elite and other powerful entities. James Madison is one of the strong proponents on the upkeep of the constitution as well as in preventing most of its amendments, especially since he believes that there is great difficulty in the process of men governing over other men (70). There must be an overall control to all members of the government in order to prevent the human inclination of following actions or decisions that came about due to vested interests, as well as to prevent the over-reliance on religion and virtue which are both subjective in nature. Also, Madison believes that a continuous process of amending the constitution would not only create problems such as the inability of most people to follow laws and regulations properly due to the inaccuracies that can be encountered after several changes were made in the original laws, thus rendering the laws much more ineffective (71). In addition, it is expected that the constitution was already a functional one since it was created by a wide variety of people, in such a way that there is a less probability that a majority of the people would be making motives that undermine the rights of the common people (73). Thus, if the constitution was made out of the various ideas and input by different individuals, it essentially governs all members of the nation, using the principles of justice and of the common good as applicable to all walks of life. In addition to the need to retain the constitution as close to the original as possible, the Founding Fathers aimed to prevent the rise of aristocracy through the ruling of only a few people and the establishment of true democracy by allowing more people to participate in the process of governance. This may be one reason why the House of Representatives initially have two-year terms in comparison with the Senate, which has six years for each term, since the former are elected by the public in order to create a greater variety of representatives to the congress, and that the latter are expected to have less attachments to public views, thus creating the balance between those that create legislatives based on the people’s voice and those that can view options without having to rely on public sentiment (73). However, problems arose when some members of the Senate became elected not due to their capabilities but reliance to vote-buying, popularity amongst members of the state legislature, and issues such as temporary appointments of governors (Neale 1). In relation to vote-buying, some members of the Senate were backed up by powerful entities which have personal interests at stake, thus by lobbying for a Senator or Senators, they would be able to control the creation of laws through them and thereby increase their rights over the law. Because of this, some senators become elected not to serve the people without bias but rather to serve their sponsors or party leaders, thus essentially erasing the intentions of the Founding Fathers on removing aristocracy. This initiated a cultural change that was unexpected and unheard of during the establishment of the republic and of the constitution, and compelled several members of the legislative body in creating an amendment on the election of the senate members by moving the voting rights from the state legislatives to the public. However, despite a recommendation starting from 1826, only a handful of proposals were offered, and none were approved until after the Civil War when the people’s satisfaction on the governing bodies have begun to erode (3). The indirect election of Senators by the state legislatures created issues that gained wide public criticism during the late 19th century, such as prolonged vacancies in the senate, protracted elections, deadlocked elections, the inability to settle on a candidate within a short period, and the problem of the Senate elections plagued by corruption (4). In addition, a rising need to strengthen representative democracy for long-term was initiated to guarantee that elections would be free from any control by corporate groups and that there would be integrity with the results, which can only happen under an electoral process through public voting by public constituents. Thus, the movement to campaign the amendment of the Senate member voting was initiated, and continuously gained momentum for the next seven decades. Based on the analogy of the Founding Fathers in the strength and integrity of the voting public, it can be understood why the Senate has longer terms and that the House of Representatives have shorter ones. During the first years of the republic, there was a strong need to overthrow the mindset of aristocracy that were seen under the governance of the British over the United States as a colony. Thus it was important for the founding fathers that equality must be granted to all citizens, even up to the election of people to govern each state in the nation. But to prevent too much public sentiment to cloud the judgment of ruling bodies, a component that was not controlled by public opinion but through the capacity to rule without succumbing to public sentiment was initiated so as to prevent the creation of self-invested rules catering to only a few public constituents. While this political setup was effective during the beginning, once industrialization entered the land, other issues such as vote-buying and corporate sponsoring among some senate members became problems, creating disparity and dissatisfaction among greater numbers of citizens, thus prompting the amendments to the electoral process and allowing the public greater power in the selection of their leaders. Most of the Founding Fathers would have wanted to keep the constitution as it is and in all integrity since they believe that it was created through the collection of various minds and ideas and would thus dissolve any form of self-interest among the laws. However, if these same rules and regulations were unable to protect the public and the common good from adulterations caused by the lack of scrutiny in the selection of leaders through underground control of corporate or more powerful entities, as well as the rapid cultural changes that happened from the beginnings of the Constitution up to the time when the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified, then it is in the best interest of the public that they gain the power of selecting whom they believe would have better judgment in their governance. However, this can only happen fully by repealing the clause regarding the appointment of Senators by an executive authority such as the governor, which is still in effect and causes controversies in the appointment of temporary Senators. In a sense, by allowing the public greater participation in the voting process through the Seventeenth Amendment and repealing some of its clauses, what the Founding Fathers initially-intended for the people to be ruled by many would still come to effect. Works Cited Neale, Thomas H. Filling U. S. Senate Vacancies: Perspectives and Contemporary Developments. Congressional Research Service, 2009. Print. Rossum, Ralph A. Federalism, the Supreme Court and the Seventeenth Amendment: The Irony of Constitutional Democracy. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001. Print. Read More