02.15
The Amendment You’ve Never Heard Of (#17)
Hurry! Right now. Quote me the 17th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You don’t know it? Well, it’s understandable. Outside of acedemia hardly anyone pays it any attention. It was ratified in 1913 and it reads like this:
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.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
So we’re square right? Oh, you still don’t see it? Well, I can’t blame you. The key to this amendment is the wording that says: “elected by the people thereof.” This amendment changed the original constitution to have direct election of senators by the people of each state. The original language of the constitution mandates that senators be chosen by each state’s legislature. This was a key check that the states had on Federal power. State legislatures would send senators to Washington and instruct them on how to vote. That kept senatorial interests firmly in the hands of the states, as opposed to now, where you have a senator in one state taking campaign donations from an interest group halfway across the country. The state is just where the guy lives.
James Madison wrote the following in the federalist papers:
It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.
…
In answer to all these arguments, suggested by reason, illustrated by examples, and enforced by our own experience, the jealous adversary of the Constitution will probably content himself with repeating, that a senate appointed not immediately by the people, and for the term of six years, must gradually acquire a dangerous pre-eminence in the government, and finally transform it into a tyrannical aristocracy.
…
Before such a revolution can be effected, the Senate, it is to be observed, must in the first place corrupt itself; must next corrupt the State legislatures; must then corrupt the House of Representatives; and must finally corrupt the people at large. It is evident that the Senate must be first corrupted before it can attempt an establishment of tyranny. Without corrupting the State legislatures, it cannot prosecute the attempt, because the periodical change of members would otherwise regenerate the whole body. Without exerting the means of corruption with equal success on the House of Representatives, the opposition of that coequal branch of the government would inevitably defeat the attempt; and without corrupting the people themselves, a succession of new representatives would speedily restore all things to their pristine order. Is there any man who can seriously persuade himself that the proposed Senate can, by any possible means within the compass of human address, arrive at the object of a lawless ambition, through all these obstructions?
It’s quite obvious that the father of our constitution saw the indirect election of senators to be absolutely necessary to keep the senate from slowly becoming tyrannical and aristocratic. Guess what. He was right of course. Just look at what happens continuously in the senate. They routinely sabotage the House of Representatives (the people’s house). Prior to 1913, if a senator didn’t vote the way his state legislature instructed him, he was frequently recalled, and sometimes replaced. That is the ultimate check on the senate. And it keeps all politics as local as possible to voters. It’s time to bring senators back under the direct control of state legislatures and re-assert the sovereignty of the states as a check to federal power. I say repeal the 17th and do it fast.
