Why We Should Repeal the 17th Amendment

The tenth amendment to the Constitution states "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." It was the intention of the founding fathers to strictly limit the powers of the federal government. They believed this could best be accomplished by dividing federal power between three branches and maintaining the sovereignty of the individual states. By reserving most powers to the states, local communities, and the people; the tenth amendment was intended to guard against tyranny and corruption of the central government. The senate was established specifically to represent the interests of the states. Senators would be elected by appointment of the state legislatures, with each state equally represented. Accountability to the legislature of their home states would help guard against corruption from the influences of outside interests or political factions. James Madison wrote in Federalist # 62 that one of the dangers of a republican government is: "that those who administer it, may forget their obligations to their constituents" and that this second branch of legislature "must be in all cases a salutary check on government". The popular vote of the people would be represented by The House of Representatives, whose members had to be re-elected every two years; giving the people frequent opportunities to hold them accountable. Senators would serve six year terms which would provide continuity to the government, while the appointments by state legislatures would guard against elections being decided by heated issues of the moment or from outside interests with ulterior motives. In other words, the founders believed that allowing state governments to choose senators would protect the people from their own poor decisions. While this may seem arrogant or condescending, the founders knew that it would be difficult for such a diverse and expansive population to obtain a thorough and unbiased knowledge of all of the issues facing the nation. The will of the people would be directly represented by the House of Representatives and the President but, in the event that the public was mislead or made poor choices in the heat of passion; state governments, through the Senate, could help check abuses of power by the federal government. The seventeenth amendment, which was adopted on April 8, 1913, established the election of senators by popular vote. The amendment was promoted by members of the "progressive movement" such as Senator Robert La Follette, publisher William Randolph Hearst, and President Woodrow Wilson as a means of simplifying the election process and guarding against corruption. The true, and many believe, intended result of the seventeenth amendment was the stripping away of state government influence at the federal level. Additionally, rather than guarding against corruption, the change threw open the door for mass corruption in the form of special interest lobbying and campaign finance. With elections often being decided by fund raising abilities, candidates are in a perpetual campaign for re-election which, in turn, leads to conflicts of loyalty between constituents and contributors. For example; a look at the campaign disclosures of Senator Christoper Dodd reveals six figure contributions from multiple political action committees of banking associations, most of them from outside his home state of Connecticut. Given Dodd's position as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, we have to wonder how much loyalty there is to the people of his state. Dodd is only one example, click here to see his disclosures as well as those of other senators of both parties. I believe the seventeenth amendment should be repealed and the power to appoint senators should be returned to the state legislatures. This move alone would nullify a huge portion of special interest influence on the federal government and give some teeth to states rights efforts.A perfect example of the protection that would be provided by this process is the debate over the health care law passed earlier this year. The people, out of frustration with the economy and the policies of the Bush administration, elected a Democratic president as well as Democratic majorities in both houses of congress. While a clear majority of Americans decided that Barack Obama was the best person to lead the country, they did not grant him the power to do anything he wanted. President Obama and the congress then used their majorities to pass a government takeover of health care against the protests of a clear majority of the people. Multiple opinion polls have consistently show that roughly 60% of voters favor the repeal of the law. The Senate even used reconciliation to pass the bill when the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts (a clear sign of opposition to the health care bill) removed the Democrats filibuster-proof majority. The ability of state legislatures to hold the Senate accountable may have prevented the passage of the bill against the wishes of the people. This type of unchecked power was exactly what the founders tried to guard against. The money and power of corporate lobbyists, labor unions, and activist groups currently permeates all branches of the federal government and has enabled the policies of a few radicals to be enacted on the majority. The most effective and immediate step to returning the government to the people is the repeal of the seventeenth amendment.