Friday, September 15, 2017

Repeal the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution


Introduction to the U.S. Constitution

This is the introduction to the Constitution, on the website of U.S. Senate.
Written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789, the United States Constitution is the world’s longest surviving written charter of government.  Its first three words – “We The People” – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens.  The supremacy of the people through their elected representatives is recognized in Article I, which creates a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives.  The positioning of Congress at the beginning of the Constitution affirms its status as the “First Branch” of the federal government.

The Constitution assigned to Congress responsibility for organizing the executive and judicial branches, raising revenue, declaring war, and making all laws necessary for executing these powers.  The president is permitted to veto specific legislative acts, but Congress has the authority to override presidential vetoes by two-thirds majorities of both houses.  The Constitution also provides that the Senate advise and consent on key executive and judicial appointments and on the approval for ratification of treaties.

For over two centuries the Constitution has remained in force because its framers successfully separated and balanced governmental powers to safeguard the interests of majority rule and minority rights, of liberty and equality, and of the federal and state governments.  More a concise statement of national principles than a detailed plan of governmental operation, the Constitution has evolved to meet the changing needs of a modern society profoundly different from the eighteenth-century world in which its creators lived.  To date, the Constitution has been amended 27 times, most recently in 1992.  The first ten amendments constitute the Bill of Rights.
This is the first sentence in the third paragraph.

"For over two centuries the Constitution has remained in force because its framers successfully separated and balanced governmental powers to safeguard the interests of majority rule and minority rights, of liberty and equality, and of the federal and state governments."

The oldest national constitution in the world, which has been the governing document for the world's most powerful nation, deliberately divides power so that no one man or organization can dictate how people live their lives.  The President of the United States cannot make laws by himself, although many have tried.  The Congress cannot guarantee that the laws they pass will be enacted because the President has the authority to veto any legislation that they pass.  Laws that are passed by Congress and signed by the President can still be nullified if the Supreme Court rules that way.

The first sentence in the third paragraph of the Senate's web page explicitly states three pairs of competing interests.
  • "majority rule and minority rights"
  • "liberty and equality"
  • "the federal and state governments"
The 17th Amendment to the Constitution changed the relationship between the Federal and the State governments.  For the reasons that I will state later on this page, I want that change to be reversed, by repealing the 17th Amendment.  This would be an explicitly legal process.  The 21st Amendment to the Constitution repealed the 18th Amendment.  This page on the website of the History Channel is about the ratification of the 21st Amendment on December 5, 1933.


Introduction to the 17th Amendment

This is the complete text of this amendment, on this page of U.S. Constitution.net.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
This page says that this amendment was proposed on May 13, 1912 and ratified on April 8, 1913.

This link, on the same page, shows the dates that each state ratified each of the amendments.  It has already been scrolled to show the dates that each state ratified the 17th Amendment.


The first modification made by the 17th Amendment

This is the text of the first paragraph in Article 1, Section 3.of the Constitution, which is copied from the U.S. Senate's web page about the Constitution.  The link to that page is at the very top of this blog page.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
The words "chosen by the Legislature thereof," were italicized on the Senate's web page because those words were changed when the 17th Amendment was ratified.

Before this amendment was ratified, Senators were chosen by the state legislators.  This gave those legislators, chosen by the people of each state, a direct ability to be advocates for the best interests of that state.  It also gave those legislators a reason to be advocates for their state.  There aren't any other procedures in the U.S. Constitution that allow Senators to have a direct voice in public policy, and when the 17th Amendment was ratified, the voices of .each state were silenced.

This is the first sentence in the 17th Amendment.

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote."

After this amendment was ratified, Senators were chosen by "the people thereof".  The people of each state, who are subject to trending political ideas in many forms, were given the power to elect Senators directly, by voting for them.  This power was given to the people (and taken away from state legislatures) in 1913.  Once a Senator has been elected, he will stay in office for six years unless his conduct violates the rules of the Senate or the laws of the United States.  That means that those trending political ideas would now be a part of the official business of the U.S. Senate.


Trending political ideas

This is the first paragraph of this page on the website of the Historian of the U.S. Department of State.
The French Revolution lasted from 1789 until 1799.  The Revolution precipitated a series of European wars, forcing the United States to articulate a clear policy of neutrality in order to avoid being embroiled in these European conflicts.  The French Revolution also influenced U.S. politics, as pro- and anti- Revolutionary factions sought to influence American domestic and foreign policy.
The French Revolution took place from 1789 until 1799.  The 17th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified over a hundred years later, so the U.S. Senate was still chosen by state legislatures at that time, which means that those "pro- and anti-Revolutionary factions" couldn't cause the Senate to make or modify United States laws too quickly.  Each Senator had been elected by legislatures, not directly by the people, so each Senator had a loyalty to the entire group of people of his state, as represented by his legislature.

The U.S. Civil War forced state legislators to make some long-lasting political decisions.  This is the first paragraph of this page, also located on the website of the Historian of the U.S. Department of State.
One of the most important victories won by the United States during the Civil War was not ever fought on a battlefield.  Rather, it was a series of diplomatic victories that ensured that the Confederacy would fail to achieve diplomatic recognition by even a single foreign government.  Although this success can be attributed to the skill of Northern diplomats, the anti-slavery sentiments of the European populace, and European diversion to crises in Poland and Denmark, the most important factor stills rises from the battlefields on American soil.  The Confederate states were incapable of winning enough consecutive victories to convince European governments that they could sustain independence.
Because every member of the Senate had a loyalty to his state, and not to a smaller group of politically-connected lobbyists, it was easier for each individual Senator to make the hard political choices that ensured the survival of a group of states that was later reunited, even though Abraham Lincoln had already been assassinated at that time.

Shorter-term political trends, including a war against Mexico from 1846-1848 and a naval war in 1898 that ended Spain's domination of the Atlantic Ocean, and thus it's ability to establish colonies, were also discussed and debated by the Senate (and the House) before the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913.

The 1847 poster on the right asks for volunteers to fight in the war against Mexico.  This war was mostly fought in Mexico.  The first paragraph of this page on the website of the History Channel shows the result of the end of this war.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848, ended the Mexican-American War in favor of the United States.  The war had begun almost two years earlier, in May 1846, over a territorial dispute involving Texas.  The treaty added an additional 525,000 square miles to United States territory, including the including the land that makes up all or parts of present-day Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.  Mexico also gave up all claims to Texas and recognized the Rio Grande as America’s southern boundary.

The counterbalance to trending political ideas

Under the terms of the U.S. Constitution, treaties must be approved by the Senate.  It is therefore an important benefit to the United States for the Senate to be composed of people who are not subject to the political fads that have the potential to cause long-term damage to the economic and military security of the United States.

Temporary political emotions might have led the Senate to vote against the approval of The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.  Temporary political emotions might still lead the Senate to approve some treaties that will not offer a long-term benefit to the United States.  Link to my March 2013 essay Three Bad United Nations Treaties.  This essay has a sequel, dated November 2013, called The Tricky Treaty Trap.  The sequel explains the process for ratifying a treaty.

I am happy that the Senate has not ratified the three treaties that are mentioned in the first essay, but because the Senate has been elected by the people since 1913, the risk that the U.S. Senate might approve these bad treaties is greater now than it would be if the Senators were elected by their state legislators.

Political and economic trends that happened after 1913, including ...
... were discussed and debated by the Senate (and the House), but after 1913, these economic and political trends were discussed and debated by Senators who had a loyalty directly to the people who elected them.  This makes them all subject to the short-term political trends that, if it were to become legislation and then law, might harm the United States.

This video was uploaded by
the American Heroes Channel.
 This video shows a 1939 rally in support of Nazi Germany that was held in Madison Square Garden in New York City.

It was well-attended, so some of the Senators, who were now elected by the people, would have been sympathetic to the issues that were mentioned at this rally.
On August 23, 2017, the Politico Magazine wrote this article which linked the 1939 Nazi rally with an August 12, 2017 rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

The rise of national socialism, as an economic trend in the 1930s, lasted longer than whatever trend was responsible for the August 2017 rally.  There are credible reports that the original participants in the 2017 rally were actors, sent there to cause an overreaction.

This phenomenon is sometimes called a false flag operation.  These are the first four paragraphs of an August 23, 2017 CNN story, which highlights the short-term nature of this rally.  Both of the links in these paragraphs were in their story.
(CNN) The whole Charlottesville protest was a purposeful provocation by the liberal left to hurt President Trump.

That's the view of several Trump supporters CNN's Alisyn Camerota sat down with to gauge their views of current events and how President Donald Trump is handling them.  One segment of that conversation -- focused on racially charged violence in Charlottesville -- aired this morning.

"I think a great portion of it is a conspiracy," said L.A. Key.  "I think it was a setup."  Asked by Camerota who organized this conspiracy, Key responded: "I think people who want to derail our President."

Later, Key added that protesters were "coming off the same bus with some wearing Black Lives Matter and some wearing the KKK shirts.  They were brought in to cause a controversy. Right?"
Whether actors, dressed like protesters, wearing two different sets of costumes, "got off the same bus" or not, this is a short-term issue, so it should not be discussed by Senators whose terms last for six years and whose loyalty should be to their states, not to the popular trends of small but loud groups of people.


One more trending political issue

These are the first three paragraphs of a November 15, 2016 story in The Hill, which also highlights the short-term nature of a very bad concept in political science.  All of the links in these paragraphs were in the story.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) will introduce legislation on Tuesday to get rid of the Electoral College, after Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election despite leading in the popular vote.

"In my lifetime, I have seen two elections where the winner of the general election did not win the popular vote," Boxer said in a statement. "In 2012, Donald Trump tweeted, 'The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.' I couldn't agree more. One person, one vote!"

She added that Clinton, whom she supported, is "on track to have received more votes than any other presidential candidate in history except Barack Obama.""The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately," she said.
"The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately," she said.

A United States Senator spoke those words, soon after the results of a presidential election that her favorite presidential candidate lost.  This is not the time to be making changes in the United States Constitution, but because Senators are elected by a popular vote instead of being elected by state legislators, short-term trends may influence the official business of the Senate.

Watch U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer argue with a Catholic Priest during a meeting of a Senate Committee.

Ever since 1913, Senators have been elected by a popular vote.

If she had been elected by her state legislature, she would have had less reason to argue with this priest about climate change, and she would have had less reason to vote in favor of a 2015 agreement with Iran, which the U.S. Department of State refers to as a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

The following tweet was made by Senator Boxer.  If you click on the date at the end of the tweet, you will see it on her Twitter account.

These are the first three paragraphs of a July 8, 2016 CNN story.  The link in the second paragraph was in their story.
Washington (CNN) Iran tried to acquire technology that could be used for a military nuclear program, calling into question whether it is living up to an international agreement intended to curb such an effort, according to Germany's domestic intelligence service.

The intelligence report from the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution found that despite the deal Iran has continued its "illegal proliferation-sensitive procurement activities" at a "quantitatively high level."

"This holds true in particular with regard to items which can be used in the field of nuclear technology," the report added.

 The next paragraphs of the CNN story show that the U.S. State Department disagrees with the conclusion of the report, but in July 2016, the U.S. State Department, including Secretary of State John Kerry, reported to President Barak Obama, a known liar.

These are the first two paragraphs of an English-language September 11, 2016 story on the website of Deutsche Welle, a German broadcaster.  Link to their profile page.
For the second time, Iran has surpassed the 130 metric tonne threshold for heavy water, used to cool reactors that can produce substantial amounts of plutonium, according to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In a report issued on Wednesday, the agency monitoring the deal between Iran and six world powers noted that Iran had served notice it would resolve the issue by exporting 5 metric tonnes, substantially over the 100 kilogram (220 pound) excess amount.  The shipment is believed to be leaving the country within the next few days.
"This agreement ... is based on the most stringent inspections regime ever negotiated."
- U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer

If Senators were chosen by their state legislatures, the California state legislature might have chosen someone else to represent them in the United States Senate at some time during her political career.


There are two features of the U.S. Constitution that prevent short-term and sometimes very emotional trends from being enacted into law.
  • The electoral college link to my essay about it
  • The requirement that Constitutional amendments be proposed by 2/3rds of the Congress (or by an Article 5 process) and then ratified by 3/4th of the states (or by another part of the Article 5 process
A third long-term feature of the Constitution, the election of Senators by their own state legislators, was changed by the 17th amendment.  This increases the possibility that short-term issues, including climate change, adverse election results, and Iran's nuclear program, might cause long-term damage to the United States.


The right place to discuss short-term political issues

Short-term issues belong in the House of Representatives, whose terms only last for two years and whose members have always been elected by a popular vote (a vote directly by individual people at individual polling locations).  This situation allows for that house of Congress to discuss and debate many issues.  This situation also allows for many more people to have contact with someone who is a member of Congress because there are over 400 members of the House of Representatives, as opposed to only 100 Senators.

Simple arithmetic says that each member of the House represents fewer people than each Senator, so each U.S. Representative has more time than each Senator to listen to the concerns of one member of his state.


The second modification made by the 17th Amendment

This is the text of the second paragraph in Article 1, Section 3.of the Constitution.  The link to that page is at the beginning of the section titled "Introduction to the 17th Amendment".
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes.  The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
These italicized words were shown this way on the Senate's website.  They were modified by Section 2 of the 17th Amendment.  This is the text of that section.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies:  Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This change is similar to the change that was made by Section 1 of the 17th Amendment.  Before this amendment was ratified, any vacancy in the Senate was filled by "the Executive", which means the Governor of that state.  After the 17th Amendment was ratified, vacancies are now filled by an election where the people vote.  These are the same people who are subject to short-term political trends.

The third and last section of the 17th Amendment prohibits it from affecting "the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution."

Laws that are enforced in the United States include the decisions of Federal courts.  One relevant court case, is titled Reynolds vs. Sims.  A website called Nolo summarized the case this way.
A U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the voting districts of state legislatures must have roughly equal populations.  The decision was based on the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and is sometimes known as the "one person, one vote" rule.

The history of the 17th Amendment

This is the complete text of this page of a U.S. Government website called Our Documents.
The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, made the Senate an assembly where the states would have equal representation.  Each state legislature would elect two senators to 6-year terms.  Late in the 19th century, some state legislatures deadlocked over the election of a senator when different parties controlled different houses, and Senate vacancies could last months or years.  In other cases, special interests or political machines gained control over the state legislature.  Progressive reformers dismissed individuals elected by such legislatures as puppets and the Senate as a "millionaire’s club" serving powerful private interests.

One Progressive response to these concerns was the "Oregon system," which utilized a state primary election to identify the voters’ choice for Senator while pledging all candidates for the state legislature to honor the primary’s result.  Over half of the states adopted the "Oregon system," but the 1912 Senate investigation of bribery and corruption in the election of Illinois Senator William Lorimer indicated that only a constitutional amendment mandating the direct election of Senators by a state’s citizenry would allay public demands for reform.

When the House passed proposed amendments for the direct election of Senators in 1910 and 1911, they included a "race rider" meant to bar Federal intervention in cases of racial discrimination among voters.  This would be done by vesting complete control of Senate elections in state governments.  A substitute amendment by Senator Joseph L. Bristow of Kansas provided for the direct election of Senators without the "race rider."  It was adopted by the Senate on a close vote before the proposed constitutional amendment itself passed the Senate.  Over a year later, the House accepted the change, and on April 8, 1913, the resolution became the 17th amendment.
The text of this website says that the original operation of the Senate was simultaneously noble and democratic.  It gave equal representation to each state, yet the Senate still had the noble ability to advise the President on the appointments to his own cabinet, as well as his ambassadors and Federal judges.  The Senate also had the legal ability to withhold their approval of any of these appointments and thus to deny the President some ability to act like a king.

The Senate still has all of these powers, but because the membership of the Senate is now subject to the short-term political fads of each decade, its' ability to participate in our government, and thus to strengthen it, was reduced when the 17th Amendment was ratified.


Summary

At the beginning of this essay, I quoted part of a page that is found on the website of the U.S. Senate.  That page describes the U.S. Constitution in a way that the Preamble to the Constitution does not, because the Preamble was written without any ability to see how well this document would survive as the foundational document of a new nation.  Link to my October 2012 essay about the Preamble.

As I did at the top of this page, let me quote the first sentence in the third paragraph of that web page.

"For over two centuries the Constitution has remained in force because its framers successfully separated and balanced governmental powers to safeguard the interests of majority rule and minority rights, of liberty and equality, and of the federal and state governments."

Before 1913, the Constitution did balance various competing interests, usually by dividing political power among three large branches of the U.S. Government and by giving each large stakeholder (legislators, presidents, judges, states, and the populace) a relatively proportional ability to influence public policy.  This balanced approach has been broken since 1913.  States have less ability to speak and be heard because state legislatures can no longer choose who will represent them in the. U.S. Senate.  This is the complete text of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Any and all political power that isn't explicitly given to the three branches of the United States Government under the terms of the first three articles of the Constitution is then given "...to the States respectively, or to the people."

No part of this amendment has ever been modified by any other amendment that I'm aware of, yet the power of the States has been diluted by allowing emotions and political fads to influence the election of the Senators who will exercise their Constitutional ability to advise the president and, sometimes, to withhold their consent.


These people agree with me

Link to an undated article on the website of the Lonang Institute, titled Repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment: A Step Toward the Restoration of Federalism in America, which includes an examination of James Madison’s notes of the debates of the Constitutional Convention.  This article is well-documented.  It includes references to five different Federalist Papers and 69 footnotes.

The following dated articles are arranged chronologically, oldest first.

These are the first two paragraphs of a February 22, 2009 column, written by George Will, on the website of the Washington Post.  The links in these paragraphs were in the column.
A simple apology would have sufficed.  Instead, Sen. Russ Feingold has decided to follow his McCain-Feingold evisceration of the First Amendment with Feingold-McCain, more vandalism against the Constitution.

The Wisconsin Democrat, who is steeped in his state's progressive tradition, says, as would-be amenders of the Constitution often do, that he is reluctant to tamper with the document but tamper he must because the threat to the public weal is immense:  Some governors have recently behaved badly in appointing people to fill U.S. Senate vacancies.  Feingold's solution, of which John McCain is a co-sponsor, is to amend the 17th Amendment.  It would be better to repeal it.

These are the first three paragraphs of an article dated February 6, 2013 on the website of The Beacon, on the website of The Independent Institute.
The 17th Amendment is in its centennial year, having been ratified in 1913.  The Amendment mandates the direct election of senators.  Prior to its passage, Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution specified, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state chosen by the Legislature thereof...”  The 17th Amendment replaces this language, stating, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state, elected by the people thereof...”  In hindsight, the Amendment is a part of the Progressive agenda that has led to the growth of the federal government, and has been a significant factor in the transfer of power to the federal government from the states.  It should be repealed.

For most of the nation’s history, until the passage of the 17th Amendment, senators were chosen by their state legislatures, which meant that the Senate represented the interests of the state governments.  There is a solid rationale for this in a federal system of government.  Legislation must be approved by both the House and the Senate, which meant, prior to the 17th Amendment, that legislation had to be approved by the representatives of the people, in the House, and the representatives of the state governments, in the Senate.  This was a more substantial barrier to the passage of legislation than after the 17th Amendment, when both the House and the Senate represent the same constituencies.

By making it easier for Congress to pass legislation, the 17th Amendment increased the power of the federal government, which has been one factor (albeit, among many) that has led to the substantial growth of the federal government in the century since the Amendment was ratified.

These are the first two paragraphs of a three-paragraph October 19, 2013 column, on the website of Red State.
The major reason why there’s so much overspending and assaults by the federal government on states rights is because it was allowed to happen through the direct election of senators.  Before the establishment of the 17th amendment senators were appointed by the states as as a way of safeguarding their rights.  That’s the reason why every state each has 2 senators so as to give them each an equal voice.

The House of Representatives is the people’s house while the senate is at least suppose to be the states house.  But that hasn’t been so since this horrid amendment was introduced and enacted.  I guarantee you that Obamacare would’ve never passed if the 17th amendment wasn’t introduced or enacted at least.  Part of the process of taking back our constitutional liberties is to return power which has been lost back to the states.  Let Harry Reid know he’s not king of the Senate.

This is the first paragraph of a February 25, 2016 TownHall story.
In a bit of unusual news, the Utah Senate voted 20-6 to ask Congress to repeal the 17th Amendment of the Constitution.  The 17th Amendment allows for the direct election of senators.  The bill's sponsor, Sen. Al Jackson (R-Highland) argued that the 17th Amendment was not what the founders of the country had intended and changed the meaning of the role of the senators.

Mike Huckabee, who was the Governor of Arkansas from 1996 to 2007 made this tweet.  If you click on the date at the end of it, you will see it on his timeline.

This July 31, 2017 story in Town Hall and this July 31, 2017 story in the Christian News Service mention Mr. Huckabee's objection to the amendment.

An August 8, 2017 article on the website Northern Virginia Daily says that a good reason for the repeal is that Senators sometimes don't act in the best interests of their state.  The article then continues with these paragraphs.
[Arizona Senator John] McCain and [Alaska Senator Lisa] Murkowski may be the latest to go against the wishes of their own state, but they’re not the only ones.  Look at Lindsay Graham of South Carolina.  Just last week he said, “The key here is to be fair to the 11 million illegal immigrants starting with the Dreamers… To the people who object to this, I don’t want you to vote for me because I cannot serve you well.”  Does anyone really think that the average South Carolina voter supports amnesty for 11 million illegals?  Does anyone really think the good people of Indiana supported then-Sen. Evan Bayh being the decisive 60th vote for Obamacare?  Same with then-Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson.

For the record, Graham has a 45 percent approval rating in South Carolina.  But he knows that the opposition to him will be fractured in any primary, and thus he keeps getting re-nominated each six years, and thus keeps getting reelected.  He may not be popular with South Carolinians, but is popular with those who profit off of illegal immigration, aka the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  In the same poll of South Carolina voters, Tim Scott has a much higher approval rating.  The list goes on and on.

Having a U.S. senator selected by our 60-plus Republican House of Delegate members and our 21 senators in Virginia would be preferable to having big money select Mark Warner or Tim Kaine.  Does anyone really think that after voting for Obamacare, that Mark Warner would have been reappointed by Dave LaRock or Ben Cline or Todd Gilbert?  Of course not!  The U.S. senators would have to do the bidding of the people of Virginia and the legislature – not what Big Pharma or Big Corn or Big whatever you call it wants.

These are the first five paragraphs of an August 8, 2017 article on the website of The Federalist Society titled It’s Time To Repeal The 17th Amendment And End Direct Election Of Senators.
If you asked me to name one thing America could do right now to remedy many of our national problems, my response would be simple:  Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.  Do it yesterday.

The Framers of the Constitution originally gave state legislatures the power to participate in federal lawmaking by choosing senators to represent their interests in Washington.  Through a campaign of misinformation, progressive reformers successfully removed that rightful power from the states.  It’s high time we gave it back.

The History of A Mistake

When the Constitutional Convention first considered how Congress would be constructed, James Wilson proposed that the people should directly elect their senators, rather than state legislatures.  His idea was soundly defeated by a 10-1 vote.  Indeed, scholars have since noted that legislative election of senators “was one of the few non-controversial decisions reached by the Constitutional Convention.”  None of the state ratification conventions objected to the proposal either.

Yet in the late 1800s, the Progressive movement turned its ire on this constitutional provision. With their unshakeable belief in the moral rightness of democracy, progressives argued that legislative election of senators led inevitably to state-level political corruption. Their revisionist historians painted a picture of a vast political conspiracy, in which state elections were regularly bought and sold by local party machines to elect senators who would serve the interests of the elites above those of the people. (For all you film buffs, they argued that the conflict portrayed in the excellent movie “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington” was the rule, rather than the exception.)

But as many historians have recognized, the data simply wasn’t on progressives’ side. Only three senatorial elections were investigated for corruption between 1857 and 1900. And over more than a century of legislative election of senators, only ten total elections were contested for impropriety of any sort. State electoral deadlocks over selection of federal senators were also rarer than progressives claimed, and most state legislatures dealt with such disagreements while continuing to govern.
I agree with part of this author's comments.  Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, but do it today.

These are the first four paragraphs of a thesis written in April 2016 by a student named Derek Muncy at Malone University, a faith-based school located in Ohio.
In Federalist 45, Madison writes that “The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.”  He also wrote that the national government would never employ a large bureaucracy nor would it maintain an extensive role of governance during peace time.  The main purpose in writing Federalist 45 was to insure the individual states that their rights were not going to be crushed under the new national government.  The large centralized state was one of our founders’ biggest and most legitimate fears.

Today,it seems that our founders’ fears have been realized.  The large, central managerial national government of the United States influences your daily life from the food you eat to the interest rate on your bank account.  State governments, while still visible, are not comparable in the size or influence of the national government.  No one even refers to themselves as an Ohioan or Pennsylvanian any more.  The majority of both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers are dedicated to articulating or defending this fear of a large central government.  In fact, it was the will of the Constitutional Convention to eliminate the phrase “National government” from the new Constitution.

So, what has led to the dramatic growth of the national government?  Many point to the usurpation of power caused by Franklin Roosevelt and The New Deal.  This argument can be easily justified by the simple number of federal acts and agencies created under the New Deal.  Some might even point to the precedent set by President Lincoln in the Civil War.  However, I believe that the growth of the national government can be credited more fundamentally to the systemic elimination of the powers and influence originally granted to the individual states.  We can identify numerous usurpations of power by the national government imposed on the state governments beginning with the Civil War.  No branch of the national government is exempt from this claim.  There have been countless executive orders, legislative acts, and Supreme Court rulings that have each slowly striped state power and legitimacy away.  However, the most egregious and destructive usurpation of power was the Seventeenth Amendment.

The ratification of the Seventeenth amendment marks the repeal of the Great Compromise. In1913, the Seventeenth amendment to the Constitution was ratified ending the appointment of Senators by the individual state legislatures.  For the first time in 124 years, Senators would not be appointed by the state legislatures.  The individual states were no longer seen as constituents of the national government.  This amendment was fundamentally a product of the “Progressive movement.”  This movement, which will be explained more in the first section,attempted to increase democracy in every aspect of political life and thwart the economic power and wealth of the industrialist millionaires.  Both the 16th and Seventeenth amendments are seen as limits to both the wealth and power of the industrialist bourgeoisie.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)