Senatorial appointment at core of founding

Knight Allen, Las Vegas

Wednesday, June 9, 2010 | 2:02 a.m.

In response to the Sun’s Saturday editorial, “Tea Party ‘populism,’ ” attacking the appointment of U.S. senators:

For just a few moments, imagine yourself as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in 1787:

“There must always be a majority of states as well a majority of the people on the side of public measures.”

— Roger Sherman

“Whatever power may be necessary for the national government, a certain portion must necessarily be left with the States. It is impossible for one power to pervade the extreme parts of the United States so as to carry equal justice to them. The state legislatures, also, ought to have some means of defending themselves against encroachments of the national government.

“In every other department, we have studiously endeavored to provide for its self-defense. Shall we leave the states alone unprovided with the means for this purpose? And what better means can we provide, than giving them some share in, or rather to make them a constituent part of, the National Establishment?”

— George Mason

So, fellow delegates, we know the success or failure of our enterprise rests entirely on our decisions regarding the structure of Congress. The proposal is that the House of Representatives will belong to the people and the Senate will belong to the states. How do you vote?

Now fast forward: A debate on the 17th Amendment could be very interesting. Whichever side you come down on is fine. I just thought your readers might like to see, firsthand, how senatorial appointment became a core building block of the founding.