When our founders created this great country, one of the bedrock principles they built it upon was the separation of powers. They painstakingly detailed how each branch of government – executive, legislative, & judicial – checked & balanced each other. That’s the first lesson in any Civics class.
But, I really believe they also intended on a separation of powers between state & federal government. In fact, the more separations & checks and balances the better. The federal form of government they created was designed to keep state governments & the national government equal, not make one subservient to the other – which incidentally is what has happened today. The major reason for this is the 17th Amendment.
17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
This seems logical. After all we are a government of the people, by the people & for the people. But, what about the states?
Imagine a local school board which is tasked with making decisions for all school’s in a district. Now imagine that the school board decides to not allow principals to speak on behalf of their particular schools. Instead, the school board only listens to the students & the parents – partners in education, for sure, but not representative voices of the schools as a whole. The principals make day to day decisions governing the life of the school that many of the students & parents don’t think about or care about. For the school board not to allow principals to have a voice in the overall governing of the school district would be foolish. But, that’s exactly what’s happened in terms of the relationship between the states & the national government, and the 17th Amendment is largely responsible.
With the ratification of the 17th Amendment, the states, groups of people linked by geography & culture as partners in government along with the national government & the people themselves, lost all representation. And, the delicate balance the founders sought so hard to maintain was tipped toward the majority and in reality toward the larger states.
Before the the 17th Amendment, Senators really represented the people as states not just the people. The President was the national leader, elected by all the people, the House of Representatives was the people’s house where small sections of the country (districts) got the opportunity to be represented, and the Senate was where the states themselves were represented. States would appoint 2 Senators to represent their state for 6 year terms (incidentally the longest of any national government term other than judges – that wasn’t a mistake). All the politics of who would be appointed was taken care of at the state government level.
This did two things. First, it made state government elections much more important, because when you elected your state legislators & governors you were trusting them to select good representatives for the U.S. Senate. Secondly, it put pressure on Senators to be above the petty political mess. Their sole purpose of being in the Senate was not to represent the people just as people, but to represent the people in-so-much-as they were grouped into states.
That might seem a little odd today, but it was really ingenious. In order for the national government to get anything done, the President, the people (through the House of Reps), and the states (through the Senate) all had to have majority agreement. It also made the Senate the one part of our government that gave each state an equal representation no matter how big or small the land or population of the state was.
The 17th Amendment is responsible for much of the squabbling that takes place between the national government & the states today. For instance, Missouri voters just passed a measure that completely goes against Obamacare. Why? Because they don’t want the federal government telling citizens of their state that they must purchase a product – in this case, health insurance. The state knows Obamacare is an example of national government overstepping their bounds. Check this out…talk about not representing your state, or even the people of your state…the Missouri measure passed with 71% voting for it. Clearly the people of the state of Missouri are opposed to Obamacare, but their Senator, Claire McCaskill voted for it. Why on earth would she vote for it if she knew her constituents were opposed to it. Simple answer – she didn’t care about representing her state, but instead cared about representing her party – a national party.
And in Arizona, the federal government is suing the state over that controversial immigration law. One Sheriff actually feels the national government is an enemy when it comes to him protecting his legal citizens. A majority of state governments support Arizona’s right to protect the citizens and enforce illegal immigration if the national government refuses to do so, which they are – they are even fighting for the right to not enforce their own laws. How stupid does that sound?
In both cases, had Senators been representing their states instead of paying attention to the national polls we wouldn’t be hearing about this news. Obamacare would have never passed and we would have had meaningful immigration reform that included securing our borders by now. How do I know? Because the states are by and large against Obamacare and for a strong stance on immigration. And, those are just 2 examples. The states are more in touch with reality than the large, bloated, bureaucratic federal government.
In addition, I would argue that the more populated states have a greater representation now in the Senate, not because they have more representatives but because their Senators feel pressure to perform based upon national pressure & polls than on the desires of only the people within their state. The national party system has way too much influence on the election of Senators for them not to feel that pressure. The election of Scott Brown is a perfect example. Had the state simply been able to appoint the Senator they felt would best serve the state, ironically it would have been a Democrat. The media blitz, rhetoric over health care reform, and millions of dollars in campaign costs would have been completely avoided.
If we are to restore order in our “federal” (not national) government system, we have to give the states their representation back. We have to have at least one part of one branch of the national government that does not pursue knee-jerk reactions to every thing that happens in society and every national poll that’s printed in USA Today.
We are a nation of 50 states, each unique in geography, population, & culture. The differences between the states is one of the greatest things about our united nation. We are not all the same, but we are together. Our individuality as states is wonderful, but it has been undermined by democracy – something our founders never intended. We are not a democracy – history shows that does not work – but instead a federal republic.
Our founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing and we screwed it up big time. Like a wobbly stool with one leg much shorter than the rest, we will not be able to keep this nation upright when the weight gets too heavy if we don’t fix that leg. Repeal the 17th Amendment.
3 Responses to “Why the 17th Amendment Should Be Repealed”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Follow me on Twitter
Another example Chris, is the decision today by a federal judge, to overturn Prop 8 in California. This is the law that does NOT ban marriage between 2 men or 2 women, but only recognizes marriages between a man and a woman. Now, Prop 8 was put on the ballot and voted on by the people of California. It received the majority of votes and was approved as such. It became part of the state constitution. Attempts to overturn it were twice vetoed by Governor Schwarzeneggar. However, the federal judge has decided basically, that the people of California cannot make decisions for themselves, and struck down the law. So much for “rule of the majority” or “government for the people and by the people”. Regardless of your feeling on this issue, the scarier part of it all, is that the government is saying that the states can’t do things on their own, that the federal government knows best and can step in at any time to change things the way they want! Or worse, that one judge can overrule the will of the people!
Kurt, What would you say if someone said the same argument could have been used for continuing slavery?
Iwould like to believe we would be able to arouse enough people to vote AGAINST slavery. If one feels strongly enough about an issue, they should be willing to support it OR vote against it. But that is the way our system is established, people have an actual voice… supposedly. Beyond that, your idea is rather intriguing. I have been rather sick of seeing elected officials totally go against what the constituents that elected them, have asked them to do. Apparently they say whatever will get them elected, and then do whatever THEY want to do.