Posted on 12/04/2014 6:37:59 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Few Americans who entered polling booths for the Nov. 4 election and pulled the lever for their favorite candidate for Senate realize that for most of American history, senators were chosen by the state legislatures. It wasn’t until 1913 that the 17thAmendment was passed, granting American voters the constitutional right of directly electing their senators.
While this important amendment may seem innocuous, the reality is that few other changes to our Constitution have had the same detrimental effect on our nation than this single, nearly forgotten alteration.
The passage of the 17th Amendment was driven largely by the populist movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, led in part by the wildly talented orator, Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan. The cry from the supporters of the 17thAmendment was that the average individual was being taken out of an important and valuable process. Any true proponent of democracy must, they reasoned, favor the empowerment of the common man over state institutions.
Although it’s true the 17th Amendment gives more direct power to the individual voter, the purpose of the Senate was never to represent the individual voters – the House of Representatives already served that function. The Senate was designed from its very inception by the Founding Fathers to protect the rights of the once-sovereign states.
In the legendary Federalist Papers, intellectual giant James Madison, who would eventually become America’s fourth president, explained in essay “No. 63” the importance of the role of the Senate elected by a state legislature rather than the people themselves: “To a people as little blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution [a Senate elected by the state legislatures] may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. … so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.”
Madison continued, “In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?”
The purpose of the Senate then was to exist as a safeguard against two potentially tyrannical powers: the presidency and the people.
Madison, like all the Founding Fathers, understood that each voter, whether he or she is a member of a state legislature or an individual citizen, casts a vote based primarily on personal interests. A citizen not familiar with the difficulties, responsibilities, or struggles of a state legislature is far less likely to vote for a senator who will represent the interests of his or her state.
In contrast, the individual legislator is likely to vote with a special sort of caution – one that looks suspiciously on any candidate that may seek to usurp the power of a state. In this unique instance, both liberals and conservatives in a state legislature stand on common ground. Although they often disagree on issues of policy, neither wishes to see the power of the state legislature diminished in favor of centralized government in Washington, DC.
Since 1913, the power and irresponsibility of the federal government has grown exponentially. Because states no longer have a seat at the table, state legislatures are now constantly at the mercy of the federal government, and there is no sign of a return to sanity in the near future.
A good illustration of the erosion of the responsibility of government is found by looking at outstanding government debt.
The debt actually shrank from 1790, when a large debt remained outstanding from the Revolutionary War, to 1850. It increased only slightly in the 50-year period beginning in 1865, the final year of the Civil War, and ending in 1915.
The 50-year periods following the passage of 17th Amendment witnessed a remarkably different era of fiscal responsibility (or the lack thereof). From 1913 to 1963, the outstanding national debt grew from just under $3 billion to over $305 billion. From 1963 to 2013, the outstanding debt climbed to over $16.7 trillion.
Without a check and balance on the spending power of the federal government, voters continued to ask for more expensive social programs and the federal government happily obliged (or perhaps the federal government implemented programs first and the people, not wanting to lose their newly found financial benefits, then demanded the protection of those programs).
In addition to the deplorable lack of fiscal restraint, the states have also largely been stripped of their powers in other arenas as well. Although the examples of this power grab are seemingly endless, two more recent expositions of federal tyranny over the states are the now-infamous No Child Left Behind Act established by President George W. Bush and the current push made by President Barack Obama to implement Common Core State Standards – national standards for curriculum that all states are being coerced into accepting through the use of Obama’s Race to the Top federal grants.
If states do not even have sovereignty in the area of education, a topic clearly meant to be protected by the 10th Amendment and a subject nowhere discussed or implied to be under the power of the federal government in the Constitution, then what legitimate powers remain?
Other than the ability to tax and issue driver’s licenses, states have little sovereignty, and the evidence is overwhelming that this is the logical result of the elimination of the state legislature’s role in selecting members of the Senate.
Had the 17th Amendment never been passed, America would be far different (and better) than it is today.
couldn’t agree more . .
PING!
Bookmarked.
I agree with him, but I don’t think Haskins explained his case in this article.
I agree and the US Senate, under this scenario, should have remained the electors of the President.
Nothing stops a State’s Senator from doing the budness of the State in DC.
Nothing stops a State’s Senator from doing the bidness of the State in DC.
The original presumption was based on wealth, but no one ever wants to say that. The Senate represented the wealthy, the House represented everyone else. But it wasn’t just snobbery - it was with a keen eye to financial realities. Truly wealthy men of the day were owners of financial resources on a scale that was affected, influenced and threatened by the stability or instability of the State itself. They were used to looking at situations from that perspective, and, it was assumed by the Founders, would be far more likely to seek to preserve its lawful stability and safety. In contrast, it was felt that non-wealthy people might be more inclined to undermine the State out of popular rage over some issue, or worse yet, br organized by an Executive Branch despot towards the same ends.
I’m not sure the model stand today, though. Truly wealthy people have gone global and give not a damn about the States. They’re more concerned with getting rid of the entire country, through treaties that they lobby for wrongful enforcement above the powrrs of the Constitution itself.
And no Gerrymandering, either!
bump
Megyn Kelly has gone into 17-Land ?
and she has lookAlike desktop strippers to download?
Unfortunately neither party wants that power returned to the states. They seem to see the senate as their check on the power of the house (our direct representatives)
The last 2 GOP senate candidates in Michigan spoke about state control of senators and were immediately tossed overboard by the party. Terri Land was especially vocal about returning the power of infrastructure to the states.
There is growing resistance to DC from the states even without the senate. For instance, Rick Snyder got the deal for Canada to build a new bridge over the Detroit river but Obama refuses to approve or fund the customs plaza on this side (federal infrastructure) unless Rick Snyder gives $100 million to unrelated Detroit pension funds. Snyder started the project without federal approval because Obama will be gone by the time the project is done.
cept the money from the coast goes in there to get doubleAgents elected against native sons.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
With respect to Congress’s limited power to lay taxes, it can be argued that one of the Senate’s original jobs was to kill appropriations bills from the House of Representatives which the House couldn’t justify under Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers. After all, such appropriations bills arguably robbed state revenues. And since the Senate was controlled by state lawmakers, federal senators would kill such bills on behalf of the state lawmakers who elected them to office.
As another consequence of 17A, we’re also seeing a corrupt president wrongly exercising powers that the Oval Office doesn’t have. This is because the likewise corrupt Senate has actually been protecting this president from the consequences of a well-deserved impeachment by the House.
Also consider that the Senate has been helping corrupt Congress to grab land from the states outside the framework of the Constitution, particularly Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I. If the Senate was still controlled by state lawmakers, I don’t think that Congress would be stealing land from the states.
Finally, since there has never been an Article V 3/4 state majority which supported constitutionally indefensible Obamacare Democratcare, the Senate was wrong to support the House with respect to passing Democratcare. Democratcare would have probably never gotten by the Senate if state lawmakers still controlled the Senate.
If elected to high office this would be at the top of my list... 17A screws up the Republic more than the average schmuck on the street will ever be able to understand.
If the 17th Amendment had never been enacted then Democrats would have been more desperate to keep control of state legislatures and governorships. They would use similar arguments that Republicans use when they field lousy candidates: we need a Republican in office to make sure the Supreme Court stays conservative. Only they would be saying we need a Democrat in office to make sure our Senator is also a Democrat.
And do the states really want to be protected from the Feds? Some governors like to rattle their sabers, but would they really want to pay for all the stuff they are currently getting "for free" from the Feds? Would they really want to completely fund the building and maintenance of roads, bridges, and dams? Would they really want to fund a state militia rather than depending on the National Guard? Would they really want to takeover all of the National Parks?
When governors start sending federal money back to Washington then we can start getting worked up over the 17th Amendment. Utah is now making a stand to see if they can retake lands taken by the feds. I don't imagine that will go anywhere, but if it does then trying to rescind the 17th Amendment might make some sense.
Similar to the British Lords/Commons?
I would love to see a study on how many Senators for Life we have had since the passage of the 17th vs Before.
Most of our Senators really live in Washington DC and Represent Washington DC to the states instead of being a representative of the States views to Washington DC.
In essence the function flipped.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.