Lecture 7 POLS 207Outline of Last Lecture:Alternate Reasons for the 14 th Amendment Part 3I. Narrow interpretation of why we have the 14th AmendmentA. Way for the judiciary to deal with race/ethnicitya. Plessy v. Fergusonb. Brown v. Board of EducationII. Broader interpretation for why we have the 14th AmendmentA. Rights and liberties for everyone, not just minoritiesa. Gitlow v. New Yorkb. Barron v. BaltimoreOutline of Current Lecture: Constitutional Amendments and the Commerce ClauseI. The Seventeenth AmendmentA. Undercuts Federalist argumentB. Introduces disconnect between state governments and the peopleC. Article 1:8 – “Congress shall have the power to…”II. The Nineteenth AmendmentA. Political gender gapB. Diversified electorateIII. The Power to Regulate Commerce (Commerce Clause)A. Great Depression/New DealB. United States v. LopezCurrent Lecture:The Seventeenth AmendmentIn 1913 the 17th Amendment changed US Senators from being elected by state legislatures to being elected directly by the people. This obviously changed the dynamics of the relationship between Senators and the state legislatures; senators don’t really suck up to legislatures now and are more accountable to the people, which is arguably not ideal because it weakens the checks and balances system. Originally the members of the House of Representatives were intended to represent the people and Senators were to be more representative of the state legislatures. Now we have both houses of Congress being directly elected by the people and therefore both accountable directly to the people.So, the 17th amendment of 1913 changes whom US Senators represent. It undercuts 1780s Federalists’ argument during ratification debate over US Constitution (Recall that the Federalists were in favor of ratification and the Anti-Federalists either had reservations or were downright against ratification. The Federalists argued that checks and balances kept the Fed from becoming too powerful, so when the 17th Amendment was adopted it partially undermined their argument). It introduces a possible “disconnect” between the “interests” of a state’s “government” and its “people” because its “representatives” are now directly elected, meaning that the state governments’ interests aren’t really represented in Congress anymore. Anti-Federalists were very upset by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution: “Congress shall have the power to…” They thought the central government was a threat to state power (and they were right). Supporters of the Constitution minimized the significance of the 1:8 powers. Basically their argument was, “You don’t have to worry about the exercise of these powers because it’s going to be state officials executing these powers in Washington (Congressmen), and they’re going to care about your interests since they maintain close connections with their constituents.”The Nineteenth Amendment*The 19th Amendment of 1920 gave women the right to vote.See chapter 4:123 for elaboration on the 19th AmendmentSee also Chapter 4:130 on the resulting “political gender gap.” In politics, the “gender gap” refers to differences between men and women in political views, party affiliations, and voting choices. For example, women are more likely than men to identity with the Democratic Party.The differing views (from men’s) that many women embraced (“the political gender gap”) diversified the electorate once they were allowed to vote.There was a “centralizing” effect based on party ID-vote and policy issuesThe Power to Regulate Commerce  Great Depression/New Deal greatly expanded “Power to regulate commerce” 1930s – 1990s No one really challenged what this power to “regulate commerce” meant.In 1995 with the Lopez case we see SCOTUS trying to enforce distinction between this “commerce” power and “police” power. This was the first case in sixty years where the SupremeCourt recognized a limit to Congress’ power to regulate commerce under Article 1, Section 8. This reaffirmed the notion that the Fed has only the powers enumerated in the Constitution.*Side note: The enduring legacy of New Deal was that it convinced many that the national government had a responsibility to maintain/regulate the economy; public’s expectation that national government is responsible for the health of the economy and more generally our well-being.Postscripts on “centralization” since the 1960sLBJ and the “Great Society” of the sixties.- Continuation of the New Deal- Reaffirmation of FDR’s