Skip to comments.Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment
Posted on 05/30/2005 5:58:31 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment by Thomas J. DiLorenzo May 17, 2005
Every once in a blue moon someone in Congress (usually Congressman Ron Paul of Texas) proposes a law or resolution that would actually improve the prospects for human liberty and prosperity. Its rare, but not nonexistent. One such case is Senate Joint Resolution 35, introduced into the U.S. Senate on April 28, 2004, which was recently brought to my attention by Laurence Vance.
S.J. Res. 35 reads: "Resolved . . . . The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed." Thats Section 1. Section 2 reads that "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years . . ."
This was the original design of the founding fathers; U.S. senators were not directly elected by the voting public until 1914. Thus, S.J. Res. 35 proposes a return to founding principles and is therefore a most revolutionary idea. A good overview of the history of the Seventeenth Amendment is Ralph A. Rossums book, Federalism, the Supreme Court, and the Seventeenth Amendment. Rossum correctly points out that the system of federalism or "divided sovereignty" that the founding fathers created with the Constitution was never intended to be enforced by the Supreme Court alone. Congress, the president, and most importantly, the citizens of the states, were also to have an equal say on constitutional matters.
The citizens of the states were to be represented by their state legislatures. As Roger Sherman wrote in a letter to John Adams: "The senators, being . . . dependent on [state legislatures] for reelection, will be vigilant in supporting their rights against infringement by the legislative or executive of the United States."
Rossum also quotes Hamilton as saying that the election of senators by state legislatures would be an "absolute safeguard" against federal tyranny. George Mason believed that the appointment of senators by state legislatures would give the citizens of the states "some means of defending themselves against encroachments of the National Government."
Fisher Ames thought of U.S. senators as "ambassadors of the states," whereas Madison, in Federalist #62, wrote that "The appointment of senators by state legislatures gives to state governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government, as must secure the authority of the former." Moreover, said Madison, the mere "enumeration of [federal] powers" in the Constitution would never be sufficient to restrain the tyrannical proclivities of the central state, and were mere "parchment barriers" to tyranny. Structural arrangements, such as the appointment of senators by state legislatures, were necessary.
State legislatures did not hesitate to instruct U.S. senators on how to vote. In fact, the very first instruction that was given to them was to meet in public! The Virginia and Kentucky Resolves of 1798 (see William Watkins, Reclaiming the American Revolution) were the work of state legislatures that instructed their senators to oppose the Sedition Act, which essentially made it illegal to criticize the federal government.
State legislatures were instrumental in Andrew Jacksons famous battle with the Bank of the United States (BUS), which ended with the Bank being de-funded and replaced by the Independent Treasury System and the era of "free banking" (18421862). State legislatures throughout the U.S. instructed their senators to oppose the BUS in the senate. Senator Pelog Sprague of Maine was forced to resign in 1835 after ignoring his legislatures instructions to vote against the Bank. The U.S. Senate voted to censure President Andrew Jackson for opposing the BUS, but the states responded by forcing seven other senators to resign for taking part in that vote. (It seems that its not only twenty-first century Republicans who run for office by calling Washington, D.C. a cesspool, and then thinking of it as more like a hot tub once they get there).
The founding fathers understood that it would never be in the Supreme Courts self-interest to protect states rights. Rossum quotes the anti-federalist writer "Brutus" on this point:
It would never be in the self-interest of the Court to strike down federal laws trenching on the inviolable and residuary sovereignty of the states, because every extension of power of the general legislature, as well as of the judicial powers, will increase the powers of the courts.
"Brutus also pointed out that with increased powers of the courts would likely come increased compensation for federal judges.
The adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 (along with the income tax and the Fed) was a result of the deification of "democracy" that began with the Union victory in the War to Prevent Southern Independence. The war was fought, said Lincoln at Gettysburg, so that "government of the people, by the people, for the people" should not perish from the earth. This of course was absurd nonsense, but Lincolns silver-tongued rhetoric was apparently persuasive enough to those residing north of the Mason-Dixon line.
The direct election of senators was said to be more democratic, and therefore would reduce, if not end, corruption. There was a good bit of corruption involved in the election of senators, but the source of the corruption was: democracy!
As Rossum recounts, in 1866 a new federal law was passed that mandated for the first time how the states were to appoint senators. First, a voice vote would be taken in each house. If there was no overwhelming choice, then a concurrent vote would be taken. This process revealed information about voting preferences to minority cliques within the legislatures, who then knew who they had to support or oppose. The end result was frequent gridlocks (71 from 1885 to 1912 alone). The deadlocks were inevitably ended by bribery. Thus "democracy, in the form of the 1866 law, led to the bribery, so that the natural "cure" for the problem was: More democracy!
The Seventeenth Amendment was one of the last nails to be pounded into the coffin of federalism in America. The citizens of the states, through their state legislators, could no longer place any roadblocks whatsoever in the way of federal power. The Sixteenth Amendment, which enacted the income tax in the same year, implicitly assumed that the federal government lays claim to all income, and that citizens would be allowed to keep whatever their rulers in Washington, D.C. decided they could keep by setting the tax rates. From that point on, the states were only mere appendages or franchises of the central government.
The federal government finally became a pure monopoly and citizen sovereignty became a dead letter. Further arming itself with the powers of legal counterfeiting (the Fed) in the same year, the federal government could ignore the wishes of great majority of the citizens with reckless and disastrous abandon, as it did with its entry into World War I just a few years later.
If Americans ever again become interested in living in a free society, one of their first orders of business should be the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment.
Indeed, there were many problems with the selection and maintenance of Senators prior to the ratification of the 17th... most of them caused by the press playing king maker and power broker both overtly and covertly.
Now a Senator need only casually visits the state he lays claim to, and has no reason to act in its behalf, except to buy votes.
It would be difficult to select a section of the Federal Government that has caused more physical, financial, emotional, or proprietary harm to the Citizens and the States, than the U.S. Senate over the last 100 years.
Are you referring to Montana and Wyoming?
It has everything to do with th number of voters. One massive change would be that the US Senate would not see fit to stick its nose into the affairs of the separate and sovereign states as they would not be pandering for votes from the illiterate and ignorant who base their entire decision on what government should do purely on emotion.
They would instead return to the business of this nation of states as a whole. Would there still be issues of theft or grifting? Of course, but just because Senators would still see some kickbacks that doesn't mean they should also see the immediate gratification of getting calls from
sheep voters promising to send them to Congress again.
As the Senate is currently filled with 101 political hacks, an immediate plus is that our airwaves, radio and television, wouldn't be filled every four to six years (depending on the cycle in your state) with empty promises from mediocre politicians who couldn't survive in private industry
The next step to return to a Constitutional Republic would be to drop popular election of the President
This also laid the foundation for SCOTUS to rule that state senates had to be apportioned "one man, one vote" also, thus abolishing the one or two state senators/county as an upper chamber, at least in California. It totally decimated the influence and balance of rural counties in state legislatures.
The state legislatures currently abound with the "illiterate and ignorant". Take the Virginia legislature for an example ~ Gag gag gag gag gag gag gag!!!! gag gag gag
If today's legislatures voted strictly on party lines, the senate would have 42 republicans and 38 democrats. If the 10 split legislatures gave 1 seat to each party, the senate would break down 52-48. Of course, if the legislatures did elect the senators, we would have different legislatures. Most likely we would have more conservative legislatures that protected states' rights.
Privatization of government was a way of life in Iceland for many hundreds of years, and they proved it worked. If government illserved the people, they simply bid for services from someone who could do well.
In other states, Massachusetts and New York for example, it really doesn't matter how big the legislature is ~ if they're not already in irons when elected, they soon will be eh?!
Get rid of one and you have 50 fewer egos & 100 fewer hands in the public till.
Thank you UNRATIFIED 14th Amendment!
No small districts in each individual state get to decide if the senator elected by there state legislator is doing right if not they can get rid of there local state leg and put in a new one. Thereby the small districts have as much say in the senate picks as the large cities who now pick the senators for each state. It works the same as the electoral college.
This might work if after being appointed for 6 years - you had to go home - and you could not be reappointed again.
This would eliminate Kennedy cabals - and a lifetime of campaigning.
I would really like to see this. People get one (1) 6-year term - PERIOD!!
This would make the person do their job and not put it off for the next 20 years.
And .. who would appoint them .. the Governor of each state ..?? That would give the Governorships much more control over what the state's representation.
It might have some kinks in it - but I like the idea of appointed senators who I would only have to look at for 6 years.
Since this is such an important amendment that needs repealed, instead of talking about this, why not DO something about it? Here is a link that should take you to the Congress.org website. Use the congressional directory and contact your US Representative and tell them you want it repealed. We gotta start somewhere.
How about electing the Senators by a committee of 25 people chosen at random.
It got ratified. You just don't like how it happened.
This from DiLorenzo is utter crap:
The adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 (along with the income tax and the Fed) was a result of the deification of "democracy" that began with the Union victory in the War to Prevent Southern Independence.The Fed was a conservative reform, engineered by the most reactionary of Senators, Aldrich of Rhode Island, starting in 1908, and over the feeble attempts by the populist Theodore Roosevelt to guide it. In 1913 Woodrow Wilson signed a Fed Reserve Act that was essentially Aldrich's although Wilson claimed it as his own.
The 16th Amendment was the product of the long SOUTHERN DEMOCRAT program to replace the tariff with the income tax. Ironicaly, its 1909 passage by Congress was a conservative ploy to avoid drastic cuts in the tariff.
DiLorenzo is consistently correct in principle and wrong in history. Amazing.
-- Nebrska has a unicameral legislature, just like the founding fathers intended under the articles of confederation (one Senate/one rep per state). In addition, the nebraska legislature is "nonpartisan".
-- I've read many articles on Icelandic anarcho-capitalism, but I don't think it can be done today. Nocizk, the noted libertarian , actually disproved anarcho-capitalism back in the 1970s. He discovered that the natually arising "natural order" advocated by AnarCaps evolves into government over time.
-- When it comes to legislatures, size DOES matter. In california, state districts contain more people than congressional districts!!!
That's a maybe and in some states that may be true. But I would put my trust in the intent of the Framers rather than the majority of the people I know, even on this site, that shill for politicians as if they're getting paid. And then somehow get upset two years later when 'their' political hack has somehow disappointed them. The state legislatures were meant to be a buffer between the people and the Senate, as the Senate would be about the more important business of this nation of states as a whole. The general public for the most part doesn't understand all the issues that the Senate covers. Heck I admit I read many of the bills and can't say I could make an informed decision on every one of them. Rather, the public treats Senate seats as some sort of football game, even calling for 'winning back the Senate at all costs' (fat lot of good that has done)
Unfortunately, the Senate has just become a higher House of Representatives with 101 political hacks fighting for soundbite airtime to complain about the other party and to let the faithful in their home state know they're working all so hard for them. Just the fact that the news wouldn't be filled with political doubletalk from a pack of liars, cheats, and grifters on both sides of the aisle (as they wouldn't be pandering for votes) is promising in and of itself
That is of course unless you believe the Framers were wrong and the two parties have done so much better in the past 80 years. But of course this comes from a conservative view and not a party faithful view.
Forcing states to abdicate their constitutional rights at gunpoint is not my style...
I am sure they'd set that sort of thing aside if we'd just let them steal and then executed them at the end of their single term, don't you?
Or do you think Senators would continue to be partisans NO MATTER WHAT?