"Appointment" of US Senators by the states

"Voters have elected their senators in the privacy of the voting booth since 1914. The framers of the Constitution, however, did not intend senators to be elected in this way, and included in Article I, section 3, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote." The election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention established the precedent for state selection. The framers believed that in electing senators, state legislatures would cement their tie with the national government, which would increase the chances for ratifying the Constitution. They also expected that senators elected by state legislatures would be able to concentrate on the business at hand without pressure from the populace. "

www.senate.gov...


Until the late 1914 all US senators were basically appointed by the various state govenors. Perhaps it is time to return these want-to-be-kings to the direct control of the common people as first envisioned under the consitution.

Various federalist papers such as #59 and #62 address the original thinking and as it turns out madison and hamilton forsaw the arrogance that has arisen in this "body" of almost president's and would be "rulers".

[edit on 11-5-2005 by Xenersys]

Welcome Xenersys.

Are you saying that the lobbying of senators and the election of same is a fraud or a waste of time? If I have read correctly, you are saying that governors should elect both of my state's two senators. Why would I trust Ahnold to do that? His first major act as governor was to accelerate the killing of stray animals. Fortunately someone explained to him that the extra week allows some of them to find homes. I don't want this guy picking my senator if he doesn't understand the value of giving abused animals a chance to find loving homes. Where's his mind?

Can you clarify your point for us?

The point is that only since 1914, senators have been directly elected and their ego's have grown significantly. The original intent of the founders was for more direct control of the senate by the "people". The 17th amendment made them "demi-gods" and there arrogance has done nothing but grow. With all the shouting about senate "tradition" for 200 years, perhaps it is time to take them "back" to thier roots..........direct control of the state's.

Its an interesting idea certainly. The Senate isn't the majority house of te government, the House of Representatives is supposed to be that. By having the Senators appointed by the Governors, you are making their responsibility directly to the Sovereign State, moreso than the Citizens of that State. Making senators popularly elected officials sort of undermines the entire idea of having a state government in the first place.
I don't see how you can say that making them appointees of the Governor puts them under the direct control of the common people tho, it accomplishes exactly the opposite, indeed, thats the intent.
The Founders modeled the US on the Roman Republic (and also the Spartan State). The Republic had a popular tribal assembly, and a more restrictive Senate, made up of senatores (literally, the old men, seniors, etc). It was supposed to represent a 'higher level' of interests, duties, and responsibilites, than simply the common public.

Indeed, whats the sense of state governments and a bicameral federal legislature if both houses are popularly elected and being run in basically the same way?