Checks and balances
Please post your comments and suggestions for this article.
Comment by MDK on October 10th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
While I understand and agree somewhat with the section 5.2 about the “Lack of checks in the two-house system,” it is clear that the author has made a decision for the reader– that the 17th amendment was destructive of the separation of powers between the two houses of Congress. I do not think he should make that decision, nor to I think that assessment is accurate. The previous method of choosing Senators likewise was not protective of the needs of the states’ populations, so it is not accurate to blame the current condition of Congress, specifically the Senate, on this change alone. A more even-handed treatment would leave the decision up to the reader, by explaining to whom Senators were previously beholding, why reformers considered the change to a popular election essential, whether their intent was borne out, and more specifically how checks between the two houses have been affected.
Comment by Gordon Anderson on April 22nd, 2011 at 5:19 pm
I have updated that section, removing the subjective word “failure” and added a bit more description of what transpired.
Leave a Reply
