Revisiting The 17th Amendment
September 24, 2009 5 Comments
This post is written by guest author Edward Mahee. Mr. Mahee has an extensive legal background, and is an emerging conservative thinker. This is his sixth posting for the site.
At the beginning of the 20th Century, the Progressive movement (the forerunner to modern day liberalism) was at the zenith of its influence in the United States. The group was so powerful that it was able to have two Constitutional amendments ratified in 1913: The 16th Amendment, which empowered Congress to lay and collect taxes on the income of persons, from whatever source derived, without regard to apportionment among the States and without regard to a census; and the 17th Amendment, which gave the power to elect members of the United States Senate directly to citizens.
Since its ratification, the 16th Amendment has been scrutinized and the consequences of that amendment, good and (mostly) bad have been analyzed extensively. Much less attention has been given to the consequences of the 17th Amendment. 
This amendment, while seemingly innocuous, removed a significant portion of the separation of powers the founders established in the Constitution. In short, the 17th Amendment has resulted in the heavy consolidation of power by the federal government at the expense of the States. The result has been a massive loss of personal liberty in the name of “enhanced democracy.”
Originally, the Constitution provided that senators would be chosen by state legislatures. It was intended that the States (through senators) and individuals (through representatives) would both have representation in the federal government. The concept was that the U.S., as a union of sovereign states, would structure the federal government such that each state would have an equal voice. The purpose was to have several sovereignties working together—the states with each other, and the states with the federal government. The result would be the diffusion of sovereign power between and among the States and the federal government.
The impetus behind this structure was the idea that states have interests that may, and often do, conflict with federal priorities on a wide variety of issues. They have different views on business regulation, social policy, environmental policy, and other issues which not only conflict with the federal government, but may conflict with each other. That was intentional. By diffusing power among various sovereignties, there was less risk of consolidated political power, a risk which the founders rightly viewed as the greatest threat to personal liberty. Political power is the power to coerce, but the more it is directed against itself, the less it can be directed at individuals.
The system worked well for 125 years. States had a strong voice in the federal government, and as a consequence, the federal government’s ability to coerce the States and individuals was significantly curtailed. After all, no senator could support a policy which would expand federal power at the expense of his State government and hope to get re-elected.
The Progressives, however, aggressively moved to change the makeup of the Senate. Their position was that the Senate was unable to act on behalf of the people because its members were not accountable to the people. The Progressives viewed the Senate as an unaccountable and undemocratic body.
While that may have been true, it is also beside the point. The purpose of the Constitution was not to provide for democracy. The purpose of the Constitution was to establish a government for the United States that respected the sovereignty of the States and the rights of the people. One of the results of this core purpose was a form of representative democracy, and the method of choosing members of the Senate was an important part of that balance.
But, the Progressives thought they knew better and pushed through the 17th Amendment, disrupting the balance intended by the Constitution. Because of the enactment of the 17th Amendment, States no longer have any real voice in the making or implementing of federal policy. States, rather then acting as competing sovereignties, have degenerated to being appendages of the federal government. While nominally sovereign, the federal government bullies them into carrying out its policies lest they be deprived of their share of federal money. The federal government is free to perpetually increase its power over the States since there is no longer any effective to check to such growth within the federal government.
As a result, the federal government continues to gather increasing amounts of power. What the authors of the Constitution were explicitly trying to avoid has come to pass. The federal government is now free to control states and to regulate citizens with impunity. Lobbyists are free to concentrate their efforts on the federal government, which is the only source of real power.
With centralization of power comes the destruction of personal liberty, and without an internal check, the federal government will continue taxing and regulating. The people of this country lost an important check to the growth of federal power over them when, in the name of democracy, we decided to elect our own senators. An ironic result, but true nonetheless. Perhaps, it is time the 17th Amendment is revisited and repealed.
-Edward Mahee for TruPolitics.net
Excellent.
It’s a valid point and not a well known amendment. I honestly don’t see how anything can be done to rescind the amendment as that would require people to vote to give up a vote which they won’t do. But as always, Mr. Mahee raises an interesting topic of discussion.
Interesting thoughts. A little bias in your writing however, b/c I really don’t think the “progressive movement” had anything to do with the 17th amendment ratification. It has become pretty trendy to, “blame it on the progressives,” and just another reason to show how “they destroy the constitution.” The early 20th century was not really flooded with calls for direct democracy in order to enhance the voice of the poor. There are some more direct voting techniques (referendums?) that could have been included in an amendment if the progressives really wanted to reach out to the common folk. In reality, and logically, when you think about it, it all has to do with the emergence of special interest groups. You’re right, the power to control is at the federal level, and this was just another way for lobbyist to get into the main event through their states. The status quo kept these groups at bay, and they wanted to change that. While you have some good points about the results of the Amendment, I think you are wrong to point the finger at Progressives, when the special interest groups are the ones that bought the amendment, and invaded DC with its ratification.
Maybe Mr. Mahee should read an article by David Graham Phillips, “The Treason of the Senate:Aldrich,The head of it all”, just google (I will leave the link at the end) it and read why the 17th amendment came about. The main reason was rampant corruption of the Senate. Talk about political machines and influence. When a Senator get millions of dollars in contributions from big business and in turn can buy off the state legislators to vote for him, you have created a machine which would be very hard to break. Even if the people elect the state legislator how long would it be until a corrupt rich, connected Senator could get them into their pocket. At that time it was the Standard Oils, Railroads & Steel industries buying influence. If we were to go back to that form can you imagine the kind of money that would be floating around today. In the mist of trying to establish campaign reform, reverting backwards would take the concerns of the everyday citizen out of the process. Let the people decide – and albeit we all will not agree with the final results, it is the fairest way. It is way too easy to buy off a politician then every voting citizen.
http://www.starkman.com/hippo/history/aldrich/phillips.html
well said phil. it was a means to an end that needed to be done to fix the inherent corruption.