Repeal the 17th Amendment

An academic issue to most, among those few who are aware that the United States Constitution has more amendments than the perennial Bill of Rights, the 17th Amendment transferred the election of United States Senators from the State legislators to the people of each state.

Before the 17th Amendment was ratified, Senatorial candidates originally campaigned for the seat by appealing not only to the masses in their states, but also securing support for the part and state legislators running for office at the same time. Similar to the electoral process which sends electors to Washington to cast final votes for the President, the legislators took their cues for whom to select for the Senate from their constituents.

The Constitution was designed to mitigate and minimize populist sentiment and to advance elite understanding of the machinations of government. So much did the Framers fear popular uprisings and reprisal as the core workings of American Government that they limited the direct impact of the voting public in shaping the Federal Government.

Only the representation in the House of Representatives would be based on popular election, with each Congressman representing a Congressional district outlined by the state legislatures.

The Senate, the chamber of the legislature originally dedicated to the states, required equal representation for each member represented. For the Framers focused on the needs of the smaller states, they did not want the sparsely populated or geographically limited states of Wyoming and Rhode Island to see their rights and powers and needs marginalized at the hands of the larger states, whose more extensive delegations would easily eclipse their participation in the House of Representatives.

Therefore, to ensure that the Senators would respect the needs of the states, and to mitigate populist sentiment within them, those federal legislators were elected by the State legislators. An ingenious set-up, state legislators would never allow the federal government power grabs which currently characterized Congress, especially the United States Senate.

Would state legislatures support Senators who confirmed Supreme Court Justices limiting the power of the states at the expense of the federal government? Would state legislatures have promoted Senators who impose outrageous regulations on interstate commerce, frustrating the business climate of the several states and intervene needlessly and dangerously in economic realities beyond the scope of the removed U.S. Capitol? State legislatures, because of their inherent elitist and ambitious natures, would serve as the perfect to federal power, foiling power grabs which would circumvent the Constitution, including the 9th and 10th Amendments.

The Progressives of the early 20th century painted the 17th Amendment as a means of putting power directly back in the hands of the people, when in fact they were more interested in inducing an educated populace to enlarge government rather than limit government. A progressive move to increase populist power was a subtle chicanery to muscle in Big Government by the express, short-sighted will of the people.

Now, both chambers, both acting on populist sentiment, have no innate or systemic incentive to block the aggrandizement of the federal government at the expense of the state, made all the worse by the fact that Senators are accountable to those who elect them every six years. Since they must seek the approval of their constituents less frequently, they have less incentive to heed their needs or protect their rights.

If the United States wants to restore the federal government back to its original purpose and scope, limiting government and protecting the rights of states and individuals, repealing the 17th Amendment would be one step in the right direction.