The 17th Amendment (direct election of senators) to the U.S. Constitution should be repealed. It has done more damage to the integrity of our political system than almost anything else. It has made it easy for Congress to enact unconstitutional laws, destroyed federalism, which was an important check on federal power, and has ironically given more power to special interest groups over the people it was intended to benefit the most – the common citizen.
Now, on the surface, there were good reasons for the 17th Amendment and I am not about to question the motives of a generation of politicians that also gave us the income tax, Federal Reserve System, and a slew of federal bureaucracies. The amendment came about because the legislature appointment system was fraught with peril. There were times when consecutive state legislatures sent competing senators to Congress, forcing the Senate to determine which member was the rightful representative. It was also tainted by bribery, nepotism, and corruption. Lastly, it was felt that giving the people the ability to directly choose their senators through the ballot box was a much more democratic process than the legislature appointment process which all too often consisted of backroom deals in state capitals.
However, the politicians of that time, much like our own, did not consider the long-term effects of their actions and were not versed in constitutional doctrine. Because if they were the 17th would have been met with great resistance. For one thing, it has led to the enactment of many unconstitutional laws – laws that are within the jurisdiction of the states under the Constitution. If you read this blog on a regular basis you will recall that Congress has 18 enumerated powers under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. All others, like environmental law, disabled persons’ acts, healthcare, education legislation, and so forth are the domain of state legislatures solely under the 10th Amendment. Recently, I had someone comment that at the end of Article 1 section 8 it says, “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof” implying that Congress has “other powers” like education, healthcare etc… not specified in that section. Wrong. Correctly read, the “other powers” refers to making laws necessary for carrying out duties of the other areas of the government. An example is found in Article 2 Section 2 where Congress has the power to by law make certain appointments.
Article comments
1 - Ruvy
Kenn,
I hate to say this, but your solution won't work. All that will happen is that more power will pass to unelected cliques who will concentrate even more time and money controlling the general assemblies of the states.
2 - Dr Dreadful
Ruvy's right. It's swings and roundabouts. You'd just be closing one window of opportunity for corruption and abuse of power and opening another.
3 - Kenn Jacobine
The people still elect the state legislatures who are closer to them and where corruption is more easily detected and rectified. How could it not be better than the current special interest system? If not then what?
4 - Ruvy
Kenn,
On paper, what you say makes sense. But having been in the position of working with state legislators, I've seen how easy it is to buy them. Put the power of senatorial appointment back in their hands, and those who now work the beltway will also expand their ops to the state general assemblies in a very concentrated way.
Every state will be as corrupted as Louisiana instead of just a bunch, as is now the case.
5 - Baronius
Overall, I'd like to see the 17th Amendment repealed. I have some of the same concerns as Ruvy and Doc, though. Not so much about lobbyists, as political parties. Won't they put up the same schlubs for the Senate as they do now? If we're going to create a temporary power vacuum we need to be sure that the states will be the only ones who can fill it.
Maybe the same senators would change their behaviour if they knew they were answerable to the state legislature in six years. Maybe not. Six years is a long time for a powerful person to look for a new job.
6 - joeymac
What a non-sensical statement.
And, exactly how would state legislature appointing Senators prevent the passing of "unconstitutional" measures?
7 - FitzBoodle
Better to get rid of the Senate entirely.
8 - Kenn Jacobine
joeymac,
it said in the article unconstitutional measures that usurp the power and rights of the states. Before 1913 it did that for the most part. Since, we have had a deluge of unconstitutional laws that have placed huge financial burdens on states. It's to the point where Hawaii can't even conduct a special election because it is broke!
9 - STM
Ken: "If not then what?"
Proportional representation and preferential voting and a system that allows for independents and representatives of small political parties to be elected to the Senate.
Otherwise, the idea of a genuine house of review - which is what the Senate is meant to be - is utterly meaningless.
The current system ensures America only pays lip service to the idea of modern democracy (that's modern democracy, including representative republics under constitutions and representative, elected constitutional monarchies as parliamentary democracies, not the ancient Greek idea of democracy)
10 - drive by
censure all Representatives
tar and feather all Senators
hang all Administrators
11 - Kenn Jacobine
STM,
Great suggestion, I would favor proportional representation for the House. Then we would officially see Republicans and Democrats forming coalitions to form a government. But, at least others (Greens, Libertarians, etc...) would have some voice in the House.
12 - Morpheus
There's a lot more than a question of the 17th Amendment now. Reason being, corrupt representatives would more than likely know their pals and companions from the same special interest groups, and simply appoint them. Regarding a few more moves neccessary, perhaps making a measure to allow some third party candidates to participate in National Debates by condition of their third party actually making it to some standard for then entrance, such as a report or registration. Currently, there's some kind of ban on third party candidates right now, that, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't sound too great, given that if someone who is either Democrat or Republican knows that it's only a matter of either me or the other guy, is there really much motivation to change much?