|
The 17th Amendment to the Constitution, which provides for the direct popular election of senators, was enacted in 1913, at the height
of the Progressive Era. Originally, the Constitution had provided for state legislatures to appoint U.S. senators, a realistic reflection that the Constitution was a compact of sovereign states.
It meant that senators would not be focused on public campaigning; they could do what they were elected to do. They would represent the interests of the states that sent them -- not the people in
the states, but the states as sovereign entities.
The Founding Fathers' original intent in providing for indirect election of senators was to place a strong check on the power of the
federal government. At the federal table, the people were to be represented by the House of Representatives, the nation as a nation was to be represented by the president, and the states as
sovereign entities were to be represented by the senators whom the states sent to Washington. The beauty of this federal table concept was the veto the states had on the encroachment of their
sovereignty by the feds. The 17th Amendment killed that veto, took away the states' place at the federal table, unleashed the feds' appetite for power, and assaulted the delicate constitutional
framework the founders gave us.
Consider the ways the process of recalling a rogue senator differs between then and now. Before 1913, if a senator were to assault state sovereignty, the
people of that state were able to exert influence on the state legislature, which is held accountable every two years by a popular vote. The state legislature would be able to recall a senator
immediately, thus sending a powerful message that those in the highest seats of federal power could be instantly dethroned.
Now, only the voters of 18 states have the power of recall. And,
you must remember, the senator will likely have enough of a constituency, dependent on the largesse she provides, that will have an interest in keeping her where she is. Since 1913, there has
never been a senator recalled.
This is not a dead issue; it is one that has been picking up steam. Sen.-elect Mike Lee (R-UT), who was swept to power in the recent elections, advocated the
Amendment's abolition during his campaign. Think about it: If it weren't for the 17th Amendment, President Obama's health care legislation would never have come to pass because senators who were
held accountable to their states would never have agreed to impose an unfunded mandate on them.
As the Tea Partiers educate themselves about what is good law and can stay, and what is bad
law and must be purged, I would urge them to take a second look at the 17th Amendment and consider whether more democracy is what we want, or if it's really more checks on the voracious federal
appetite for power that we need. |
|
The 17th Amendment Was a Very Bad Idea
By Doug Patton June 29, 2010 7:14 AM
"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one
government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." -- Thomas Jefferson, in 1821
The most
anti-American president in the history of the country -- at least until Barack Obama entered the White House -- was Woodrow Wilson. Elected in 1912, Wilson was a racist progressive Democrat who
viewed the Founders and the Constitution with disdain. During his first year in office, he promoted two of the most destructive amendments to the U.S. Constitution ever ratified -- the 16th,
which gave us the direct federal income tax, and the 17th, which provided for the direct election of U.S. Senators.
The popular election of our senators is
bad public policy because it stripped the states of the one voice of representation they had in Washington, DC. James Madison, remembered as the Father of the Constitution, cautioned against
"nationalism," wherein a strong national government would rule from Washington. Madison instead favored a new system, to be known as "federalism," which would give co-equal
powers to the state and the federal governments. One of the key aspects of maintaining this distinction was the manner in which U.S. Senators were selected.
The House of Representatives, Madison said, would be the direct advocate for the people, and would be elected through their direct vote. U.S. Senators would be selected by their state
legislatures, and would represent the interests of the states. By the end of the 19th Century, widespread corruption within state legislatures was rampant. At least that was the excuse used by
those who advocated ratification of the 17th Amendment. As if there is no corruption surrounding this issue under the current system. Anyone been watching the trial of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich
in Illinois?
Imagine how much more accountable United States Senators would be to the states they allegedly represent if they had to answer to the
legislators in that state, rather than to the fickle whim of voters.
Blagojevich is on trial for trying to sell Barack Obama's old Senate seat. If the state
legislature had been tasked with finding a replacement, rather than the governor, perhaps the people of Illinois might have someone more competent than Roland Burris.
Perhaps Sen. Ben Nelson would have listened to his constituents' opinion on Obamacare if he had known that the Nebraska Legislature could have replaced him at will.
Do you think that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would have so brazenly disregarded the wishes of Nevada had his fate rested in the hands of the
legislature?
How does the fact that Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut raises almost all his campaign money from out of state donors -- a practice that would be
neither necessary nor tolerated under the old system -- further the interests of his state?
What are the chances Sen. John Kerry would not be called on the
carpet by the Massachusetts Legislature for voting in favor of a federal health care bill that duplicates legislation already in effect at the state level?
Today, Alaska does not have the authority to allow oil drilling in ANWR because of federal interference. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is battling the feds over his state's right to protect its
coastal wetlands from BP's oil spill. Jindal has also had to take the Obama administration to court in order to stop the president's moratorium on offshore drilling. The state of Arizona is being
sued by the Justice Department for enforcing immigration law. Everywhere we turn, the states are being crushed under the boot heel of an out-of-control federal government.
The United States has repealed only one amendment in the 223 years since the Constitution was ratified. It is time for the 17th Amendment to join the 18th on the
ash heap of history.
---
Doug Patton is a former speechwriter and public policy advisor who now works as a freelance
writer. His weekly columns appear in newspapers across the country and on various Internet websites, including Human Events Online and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor.
Readers can e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net.
Read more: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2010/06/patton-the-17th-amendment-was-a-very-bad-idea.php#ixzz0sGTxHxv2
|
|
Restoring Federalism: Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment
Posted By Alan Snyder On August 31, 2010
The "Restoring Honor"
event at the Lincoln Memorial was inspiring. That should be just the beginning of a "Restoration Movement." We don't really need a revolution in America; all we need to do is restore what once
was. I have a suggestion for another aspect of our Founding that needs to be restored—a suggestion that some will call unrealistic, yet one that the Founders considered essential.
Let's
restore the provision in the original wording of the Constitution that allows state legislatures to choose a state's senators who serve in Congress.
Constitution
Article I, Section
3 says, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof."
The reasoning was lucid: the people of each state already
had direct representation into the national government via the House of Representatives; it was necessary as well to provide representation for the state governments in the national Congress. The
goal was to make sure that laws passed by each state were not going to be overturned by the national government without good reason.
It was one of those key checks on power; it was to provide balance in the federal system.
Why did this change?
By the early twentieth century, the progressive movement was gaining
ascendancy. One of the primary tenets of the movement was to add an amendment to the Constitution allowing the people of each state to elect senators directly, just as they already did for
representatives.
The argument was pretty much the following: there is too much corruption in the Senate, and the only way to ensure good government is to give the people at large the vote
for senators. That will end the "evil" of state legislatures sending their favorites to Congress.
This reasoning was based on the belief that state governments usually legislated against
the well-being of the people and assumed that if the people, not the state legislatures, chose the senators, they would no longer be corrupt.
Consequently, in 1913, the Seventeenth
Amendment was added to the Constitution, shifting the choice of senators from the state legislatures to the people of the states. Now that the people choose their senators, corruption has
vanished from the halls of the Senate.
Is there really anyone who believes that fantasy?
Senate Chamber
If state legislatures are corrupt, the people can change them. The
maxim holds: in a representative system, the government is a reflection of the people who voted them into power. If corruption exists, the people allowed it. If the people awaken to the
corruption, it will be much easier to root it out at the state level than at the national because the state government is closer to the people, and their voice can be more clearly heard.
Denying the state legislatures the choice of senators has effectively eliminated state government influence on national legislation. The senators don't have to answer to their state governments
anymore; they are elected or re-elected by the people directly. As a result, they don't care about the interests of the state governments. They only have to pay attention if the people get
aroused on an issue.
This changes the role of senators. They are now just like their counterparts in the House; the only differences are that their district is comprised of the entire
state and they get to hang around for six years rather than two.
The problems go beyond theory. What about unfunded mandates? This is when Congress passes laws that require states to pay
for them. Who is in the Congress to plead for the state governments and be concerned about state budgets? No one. In some respects, the state governments have become mere appendages of the
national government. They have no say or recourse except to try to find relief through the courts.
Here's another very specific consequence. The Senate has the responsibility for
confirming federal judges, even to the Supreme Court. When going through the confirmation process, does any senator take into consideration how a judge's judicial philosophy will affect state
laws?
When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, forty-four state laws restricting abortion were overturned. If senators had to protect their state's laws, as representatives of their
respective legislatures, they would have been more attuned to whether the judges they placed on the Supreme Court would have the tendency to overthrow the principle of the sanctity of life.
In the past thirty-seven years, more than fifty million innocent children have lost their lives. Part of the blame should rest on the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment.
It's time to
consider the repeal of this amendment. Very few have taken up this cause. I know its repeal is not probable—but it is possible. If we can at least start the discussion, you never know where it
may lead.
May the "Restoration Movement" continue to thrive.
|
|
