Repeal Seventeenth Amendment

With respect to states' rights, it should be readily apparent to all that state governments cannot exert any meaningful influence or control over the federal government, judiciary, or any other federal institution.<.u>

Let us state the problem precisely. At the present time, there are no checks and balances available to the states over federal power or over Congress itself in any area. However, in the history of our country, it was not always this way. In the original design by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, there was an effective check on Congress through the state legislatures' power to appoint (and remove) U.S. Senators. As such, the core of the problem with state's rights issues lies in the passage of the 17th Amendment which abrogated the state legislatures' right to appoint U.S. Senators in favor of popular election of those officials. This amendment created a fundamental structural problem which, irrespective of the political party in office, or the laws in effect at any one time, will result in excessive federal control in every area. It also results in a failure in the federalist structure, federal deficit spending, inappropriate federal mandates, and the evaporation of state influence over national policy.

The reason for the passage of the 17th Amendment should be stated. The 17th Amendment was passed because of a procedural problem in the original concept and not because of a need to alter the balance of power. The procedural problem consisted of frequent deadlocks when the state legislatures were trying to select a senator. When deadlocked, a state would go without representation in the Senate. For instance, in the very first Congress, the State of New York went without representation in the Senate for three months. Additionally, numerous other problems resulted from the efforts to resolve individual deadlocks. The problem of deadlocked legislatures continued unabated from 1787 until 1913. The seventeenth amendment, calling for popular election of senators, fixed the procedural problems, but also inappropriately and unintentionally altered the balance of power. Instead, the 17th Amendment should have fixed the procedural problems and left the balance of power between the states and the federal government intact.

For more information, I respectfully refer you to a law review article that I wrote, Amplifying the Tenth Amendment, 31 ARIZ. L. REV. 915 (1989). This article was cited as "worth reading" by the National Law Journal, in its March 5, 1990, publication. Additionally, I direct you to two books written by George Haynes titled "The Senate of the United States" published in 1938, and "The Election of Senators" published in 1906. I believe that you will find that these references are well worth reading.

In my opinion, the 17th Amendment should be repealed. This would reinstate the states' linkage to the federal political process and would, thereby, have the effect of elevating the present status of the state legislatures from that of lobbyists, to that of a partner in the federal political process. The state legislatures would then have the ability to decentralize power when appropriate. It would give state legislatures direct influence over the selection of federal judges and the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary and much greater ability to modify federal court orders. This structure would allow the flow of power between the states and the federal government to ebb and flow as the needs of our federal republic change. The existing relationship, combined with the effect of the Supremacy Clause, is guaranteed to concentrate power into the hands of the federal government with little or no hope of return.

The constitutional amendment proposed would reinstate the states' linkage to the federal political process and would, thereby, have the effect of elevating the status of the state governments from that of lobbyists, to that of a partner in the federal political process. Figure A above portrays the existing relationship between the states and the federal government. This relationship, combined with the effect of the Supremacy Clause, is guaranteed to concentrate power into the hands of the federal government with little hope of return.

With the passage of the amendment, the state legislatures would have the ability to decentralize power when appropriate. After passage, it would primarily be the state legislatures interacting with their appointed senators, and not with the other branches of the federal government, that would establish the "line" between the federal and state governments. Figure B shows the effect of the passage of the proposed amendment on the relationship between the governments. This structure allows the flow of power between the states and the federal government to ebb and flow as the needs of our federal republic change. This structure also exemplifies the original concept of the Framers of the Constitution.

John MacMullin has a private law practice in Phoenix, Arizona.and a Juris Doctorate degree from the University of Arizona College of Law. His article, Amplifying the Tenth Amendment, 31 Ariz. L. Rev. 915 (1989) was cited as "worth reading" by the National Law Journal,

This would drive a stake through the heart of the monster in D.C. and help return us to an America envisioned by the founders.

Boonie Rat

MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66

--I believe one of the causes of the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment was the fact that in the latter part of the ninteenth century, the popular perception was that railroads and then Standard Oil controlled many state legislatures with the obvious result that they were also perceived as "owning" the Senate--

Electing them by popular vote was supposed to fix this--someone can correct me if I'm wrong--

This would have been a good idea a few decades ago. Not now. Notice how the internet is just beginning to affect senate races. Now imagine how much the internet will affect senate races 10 years from now. The only way corrupt politicians can survive now is with dead registered voters and candidate swapping [such as in NJ]. These are signs of desperation. The only problem with the 17th amendment was that it was too soon, before people were able to get quickly informed easilly.

The Federal Government will never check its own power. That is the whole reason for federalism and the reason the founding fathers adopted a federal system of government. There is no check at all on the federal government unless state sovereignty exists, and state sovereignty is itself meaningless without the right of secession. Thus Lincoln's war, by destroying the right of secession, also destroyed the last check on the potentially tyrannical powers of the central state.
The Real Lincoln by T.J. Dilorenzo page 267.

It would do everyone well to read this book to see how the Lincoln made a government of the people, by the people, and for the people a government of a priveledged few in power. Our government changed in 1865.

The 17th Amendment was a democratic ideal, to give each person more of a voice. That was too soon. It was only recently that people were informed enough to counter the huge war chests of corrupt senators without a miracle. The time for going back to state appointments has passed. It's looking backwards rather than forwards. Voters are generally more informed now. The trend has been that voters will be even more informed in the future. FReegards....

I have a hard time believing that deadlocks were the sole reason for passage of that amendment, or even figured at all in the decision. First of all, it's hard to see how such deadlocks actually prevented the Senate from doing its job, or resulted in an unfair administration of government. Secondly, if a state went un- or underrepresented as a result of deadlock, it was its own fault and should suffer the consequences. And finally, Congress has the power under the Constitution, if it so chooses, to make regulations regarding the manner of electing senators, and could therefore prescribe rules that would minimize or eliminate the deadlocks.

That said, I'm all in favor of a repeal of the 17th.

It would also mean that California's Davis and the assorted outcast garbage that now controls California's legislature would appoint their type of senator. You see kiddies our constitution implies a relatively homogenous people. It does not suppose the cesspool we are in the process of becoming.

There is no check at all on the federal government unless state sovereignty exists, and state sovereignty is itself meaningless without the right of secession.

I do not seek states' rights so much as the right of informed voters. Sadly, we have to put up with the uninformed voters, the paranoid voters, and the intellectually lazy voters. Regardless, the overall result is I'm seeing more wisdom in the polls than I'm seeing in the professor-worshipping people we often elect.

What I would like to see is complete state authority [as a collective body] over the EPA, the Department of Education, the FBI, and other agencies that are making the Executive Branch too powerful.

Do you think the New Jersey state legislature would do a better job of selecting a senator than the voters of New Jersey? If given a choice between the Torch and Forrester, who would the legislature have chosen?

I think that it would have helped to appoint senators in the past. But now voters have better access to information.

Hey if this goes through, goodbye Hillary.

I think that the voters of New York are changing much more quickly than their government is changing. If it hadn't been for that sudden marital problem, Guilliani would have beaten Hellery. But if the legislature had the power to appoint back then, not even sir Knight Guilliani could have beaten her.

Notice how the internet is just beginning to affect senate races.

No, I haven't noticed. All I've noticed is that most people I come in contact with still have no idea how to use the Internet, and when they do, it's to email someone about what they did last night, or to book a flight to Aruba. They certainly don't get any news from the Net that they wouldn't get from TV or any other source.

Until there's substantive change in the political system, then in all likelihood senators and other politicians are going to keep getting elected the way they always do: by spending large quantities of pork on their districts.

The internet makes it much easier for conservatives in Fox News, talk radio, and political campaigns to get informed quickly and cheaply. It is just in its infancy, and it's already having a tremendous affect. You might not notice that disgruntled journalists who are getting shut out by the editors have been leaking to Drudge. Editors are no longer able to spike big news like they did in the past.

You think pork is bad now. What would it be like if we go back to appointments? State governments would love pork even more than the voters.

Then why have senators at all? The people already vote for a representative in Washington; voting for a senator is mere duplication.

With more and more senators receiving campaign contributions from out of state, they are even less likely to represent the interests of their state, which was the original intent of the framers.

If given a choice between the Torch and Forrester, who would the legislature have chosen?

Ah, but you see, one of the advantages of having a legislature choose senators is that they wouldn't have to pick between only two candidates, the way the voters have to. They can pick anyone they want.

And as for whether the legislature would pick a better senator, I can't say for sure. For one thing, if legislatures pick senators, it would change the way people would elect their state legislatures. Right now, most people couldn't care less who their state reps are, and in many districts they run unopposed. This leads to a complete subservience of state government to the feds. Giving state governments a tie-in to the federal government would change that.

Secondly, senators (and politicians in general) act the way they do in large part because of the influence of political pressure groups, whom they rely on for campaign funding. This would be rendered unnecessary if state legislatures were to choose them, since no senator would have to mount a multi-million dollar political campaign to get a legislature's attention.

If you want an example of the stark ingnorance and mob mentality of voters void of thought process, just reexamine the voters in Broward County Florida. The education system produces ignoramuses, pop culture takes over after they get their GED, liberal media and corruption does the rest to cannibalize our constitutional heritage. Repealing the 17th would remove the chase for money for each senator and shift influence to the states, where it rightly belongs. Imagine the effect on Senators who do not have to be fundraisers. What would they do with their time, then?

I view the US Constitution as a contract or compact among three parties - the federal government, the people and the states. The federal government is represented by the Presidency, the people by the House and the states by the Senate. The Seventeenth Amendment disrupted this balance of power, particularly in light of the supremacy clause and the doctrine of pre-emption.

You admit the Civil War changed the Constitution in your statement. Hamilton, John Marshall, Daniel Webster, Tocqueville, Madison and William Rawle (all scholars on the Constitution) agreed that a singular state could seceed without the approval of other states.

It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases a right to determine how they will be governed.
View of the Constitution 1825 by William Rawle, the textbook used for Constitutional intrepetation at West Point.

Explain West Virginia if your statement is correct.

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.