President Trump's team is tasked with reducing the size of the Federal Government and returning Power back to "We The People!" Part of that process has to include re-establishing the rights that were taking away from each state by the 17th. Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, shifted the election of U.S. Senators from state legislatures to direct election by the people. While this change was made to address corruption and increase democratic participation, it has unintentionally weakened the original structure of federalism and upset the balance of power between the states and the federal government.
Repealing the 17th Amendment could help restore the role of states in federal governance and bring government closer to the people. Here’s why repealing it makes sense:
1. Restoring the Founders’ Vision of Federalism
The “Founding Fathers” deliberately designed the Constitution to balance power between the federal government and the states. The original system had Senators elected by state legislatures, which ensured that the interests of individual states were directly represented in Washington. This was a crucial part of the "Great Compromise" that shaped the bicameral legislature, with the House representing the people directly and the Senate representing the states.
By making Senators accountable to state governments, the original structure ensured that states had a strong voice in federal policy. This helped maintain a healthy tension between state and federal power, preventing overreach by the national government.
The 17th Amendment broke that balance by making Senators accountable to the broader electorate, resulting in Senators who often prioritize national interests or the interests of powerful special interests over the needs of their states.
2. Strengthening State Sovereignty
Repealing the 17th Amendment would return power to the states, empowering state legislatures to elect Senators who reflect their specific needs and priorities. Today, many policies decided at the federal level ignore the diverse needs of different states. A state like Montana, with a small population and unique rural concerns, may have very different priorities from a state like California or New York. Without direct influence over Senate elections, state governments have a weaker voice in crafting policies that affect them.
By repealing the 17th Amendment, state legislatures could once again choose Senators who will directly represent their interests in Washington, ensuring that federal laws are more attuned to the diverse needs of different regions.
3. Reducing the Influence of Special Interests
Direct elections have opened the door for money and special interests to play an out-sized role in Senate campaigns. Modern Senate races often involve enormous sums of money, with candidates relying on donations from national political action committees (PACs) and wealthy donors to win elections. This can result in Senators being more responsive to donors than to the people or the states they represent.
Under the pre-17th Amendment system, Senators were chosen by state legislatures, reducing the influence of special interest groups and national political machines. Repealing the 17th Amendment could help diminish the role of money in politics by shifting the focus back to the concerns of state governments, rather than the demands of campaign donors.
4. Enhancing Accountability
Direct elections have not always led to greater accountability. Senators, with six-year terms, can easily become disconnected from their constituents and more focused on national political trends than local concerns. If state legislatures had the power to select Senators again, they would be able to hold Senators more directly accountable. Senators would need to answer to their state governments and reflect the will of the state’s people through their elected representatives.
This system would allow states to recall or replace Senators more easily if they fail to represent state interests, making Senators more responsive to the needs of their states.
5. Promoting Deliberative Governance
The original design of the Senate was to create a body that was more deliberative and insulated from popular pressures, unlike the House of Representatives, which is subject to the immediate whims of public opinion. By having Senators elected by state legislatures, the Founders ensured that the Senate would be a more stable and thoughtful chamber focused on long-term policy goals rather than short-term political gains.
Repealing the 17th Amendment would help restore the Senate as a more deliberative body, focused on thoughtful governance and the careful balance of federal and state interests.
6. Improved Representation for Rural Areas
By allowing state legislatures to appoint Senators, rural areas would have a greater voice in government, as these representatives are more likely to understand the unique challenges facing rural communities and prioritize their needs.
7. Increased Partisanship
The direct election of Senators has contributed to an increase in partisanship, as candidates are now more focused on appealing to national party bases rather than working across the aisle with colleagues from other states. This polarization has hindered the Senate's ability to function effectively and pass meaningful legislation.
8. Lack of Representation for Smaller States
The 17th Amendment has created an imbalance in representation, as Senators from smaller states are often at a disadvantage when competing against those from larger states with more populous districts. Repealing this amendment would allow state legislatures to ensure that each state's interests are represented proportionally.
9. Reduced Checks and Balances
The direct election of Senators has diminished the checks and balances intended by the Founding Fathers, as Senators are now beholden to national party leaders rather than their constituents or state governments. This shift has eroded the Senate's ability to serve as a co-equal branch of government.
10. Increased Campaign Spending
The 17th Amendment has contributed to an increase in campaign spending and special interest influence, as candidates must rely on donations from wealthy donors and PACs to finance their campaigns. Repealing this amendment could help reduce the corrupting influence of money in politics.
Conclusion: Repealing the 17th Amendment to Revive Federalism
Repealing the 17th Amendment would restore the balance of federalism, strengthen state sovereignty, reduce the influence of special interests, and create a more accountable and deliberative Senate. While direct election of Senators may have been well-intentioned, it has shifted power away from the states and weakened the original purpose of the Senate as a voice for state governments. To better reflect the diverse needs of America and to reinvigorate our federal system, it's time to consider repealing the 17th Amendment and returning the election of Senators to state legislatures.
Share your thoughts on why (or why not) you think the 17th Amendment should be repealed!
