Repeal Seventeenth Amendment

States' Liberty Party ^ | September 22, 2002 | John MacMullin

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

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.

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.

With that, the state governments should be focusing an effort to repeal the 17th Amendment, not on passing legislation or engaging in irrelevant activities, that are more than likely useless over the long term and probably also over the short.

Illustrations

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.

Illustrations by John MacMullin

Text of Proposed Amendment

Viewable HTML format         Text Version

john.macmullin@cox.net

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,

Additional discussion by John MacMullin

More on 17th Amendment from States' Liberty party

States' rights can become a reality...

Friends For America

Join a National Organization dedicated to Repealing of 17th Amendment

Friends for America is not affiliated with the States' Liberty Party

Give your comments to editor@statesliberty.org

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

PING!

[DustyMoment]

Yes, yes, YES . . . . . . . 1,000 times YES!!!!. Repeal this dreck Amendment and restore our REPRESENTATIVE republic to the structure that the Founding Fathers intended!!!!!

[genxer]

This is the exact amendment that has caused the horrible shift of power that has gone one. its repeal would put the system of checks and balances back in operation. The US senates responsiblty were outlined for a group that would not be subject to PUBLIC pressure.

House is for the people
Senate is for the States

Many replican state houses have liberal senators.
Senator are presently suject to lobbys and corruption. So anyone who wants campaign finiance reform should more be looking at the repeal of this amendment. Doing so would go a long way to fixing the country. Fixing corruption. Fixing how judges are selected and stop judges that overreach.

There needs to be a grass roots to repeal this.

[bukkdems]

This is one of former Senator Zell Miller’s most passionate conclusions after leaving the Senate.

[trek]

And while we’re at it let’s get rid of 14 too. That one has led to a tremendous amount of mischief including the ridiculous concept of the anchor baby. Nobody born in the United States was brought here against their will. Job done. Away with the accursed 14th I say.

[Repeal The 17th]

Sounds good to me.

[Non-Sequitur]

Repeal the 17th Amendment and the Democrats control the senate. They control both houses of the legislature in 23 states. That 46 seats right there. In 11 states the Democrats control one house and the Republicans control the other. Assume they compromise and split the Senate seats between the two parties and that’s still 11 more Democrats in the Senate. Final total is 57 Democrats and 43 Republicans.

[JSDude1]

EXACTLY!

[goldstategop]

I think something along the lines of the German Bundesrat would work. Allow each state to send an ambassador to the federal government and instead of giving them a fixed term, allow Senators to be recalled at the instruction of their home government. Such a change would transform the Senate into a watchdog on the central government and into a more effective advocate of state interests.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[JSDude1]

Temporarily (as we know most people in the states are conservative minded); that will be remedies in the normal if it happens, electoral process).. It will have the long term-effect of having much more conservative senators!

[RichInOC]

[looks at California Legislature]

Hell, no.

[Joe 6-pack]

I’ve long believed this Amendment needs to be repealed. Doing so would do much more to reform lobbyist influence than McCain-Feingold. Senators who are not popularly elected need not raise huge campaign war chests. Likewise, I think it would probably have a positive impact on porkbarreling. At present, a Senator makes his name by bringing home Federal tax dollars from across the 50 states, and slapping his name on a bridge, highway or Army Reserve Armory for all of his electorate to see. If, on the other hand, the Senators were directly responsible to the state legislatures, they would have a greater vested interest in keeping tax dollars from ever leaving their state in the first place.

[bill1952]

bump

[maine-iac7]

[maine-iac7]

There needs to be a grass roots to repeal this

and it should be.

We have tens of thousands of brave troops who have volunteered, putting their lives on the line, to help secure our freedoms.

Are we brave enough to give them back up?

Remember, we get the kind of gov't we deserve. Too many people today, even Republicans, think the gov't should do everything - NO.

WE are the government - we tell THEM what to do and what to knock off doing

[RetiredArmy]

What???? The PEOPLE ACTUALLY BE GIVEN A SAY IN GOVERNMENT???? Surely you jest!!! Surely!!! In a totalitarian form of government which our beloved Marxist’s Dimocrats of the People’s Socialist Abortion Homo-Fag Party are forming, the people don’t get no freaking say!! The Commissars and Queen Hildabitch have all the say. We are mere sheep and know nothing. We cannot read, write, or do crap. We are stupid, led by those of higher IQs than we. We certainly do not deserve to have a say in our own government. We were MEANT to be ruled by the Marxists./mild sarcasm still running hot

[Eastbound]

"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."

I've never heard it said, but the 17th Amendment also denies the right of the people to have a Republican form of government (As defined by the Constitution at the time of ratification).

Surprise, Surprise! The great and noble experiment failed on the day the 17th was ratified. But that is not really true, for the Supreme Law of the Land cannot be diminished, even by ratification of an amendment.

The Amendment is repugnant to the Constitution. Not in pursuance to the Constitution/Bill of Rights. Why are we still allowing senators to be elected by popular vote? Why has no one filed a suit against the government charging deprivation of rights?

[Mountain Troll]

Think of it as an incentive to pay just as much attention to the State elections as the Federal. Most people don’t even know who their State representatives are, let alone what their politics are.

[M Kehoe]

How many times have I made this request on this board? Maybe a billion? Ok, I might have exaggerated a little.

Oh, and let's not forget the 16th amendment either. That amendment has come close to putting us into slavery.

As I put these electrons in order on this page, the Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves.

Thomas Jefferson was right in the time frame he suggested. [And no, I won't explain that last sentence to those of you in Rio Linda or PBC]

5.56mm