Musings of a Patriot

Constitutional Amendment 17

Following close on the heels of the sixteenth amendment (both in terms of time and impact) comes what may well be the second most fundamental alteration to the public perception and operation of our government through the Seventeenth Amendment.

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 legislature.

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.

This amendment might look fairly innocuous on the surface but it fosters a fundamental shift in the way that the people perceive the structure and function of the representation within the federal government.

I have written about this amendment before and I understand from the comments that some real problems had developed with the original setup of having state legislatures choose the senators. We cannot underestimate however the fundamental shift encoded in this amendment. In my state government I need to pay attention to one senator and one representative in the state government representing me. Before this amendment those two individuals were held responsible for how the state was represented in the United States Senate and then I would pay attention to my representative in the House of Representatives (replacing them if I felt poorly represented). Now the common perception (and the true fact sadly) is that the senators from each state are to represent the people of the state (so I have three people to keep my eye on in the federal level legislative branch besides the two I track in the state legislature) rather than representing the interests of the state as a sovereign political entity and being held accountable by the government of the state directly.

It is no wonder, with this amendment, that people today do not recognize that our structure of government was intended to be a representative republic – with the interests of the people balanced against the interests of each of the states – rather than a democracy.

Posted

in

by

David

Tags:

, , , , , ,

Comments

6 responses to “Constitutional Amendment 17”

  1. Scott Miller Avatar
    Scott Miller

    I totally agree with you. I think this Amendment falls well within the Law of Unintended Consequences. The state legislatures that approved this did not fully understand what they were giving up. If only the people fully understood this principle and that this country is a republic of individual states and not a democracy. It is sad this fundamental principle is not understood at all. This Amendment also created a substantial conflict with the electoral college, which was clearly put in place so the individual states choose the President and to protect small states such as Utah and Nevada. If “people” understood this we would quit hearing about the disputed 2000 election, which in fact, underscores the genius of the method to elect the President.

    Reply
  2. Reach Upward Avatar
    Reach Upward

    As with most centralized power grabs, the 17th Amendment was presented as a way to solve a problem that was much less severe than portrayed by its advocates. However, I think it is important to realize that the push for direct election of senators began during the original Constitutional Convention and finally reached it climax with the passage of the amendment.

    It is also important to recognize that, like most of the successful amendments since 1791, the amendment simply reflected codification of what was already going on. States began changing to direct election of senators in 1900, with most states using that method by the time the amendment was passed. Even without the amendment, it is likely that direct election of senators would have eventually have been universally or nearly universally adopted.

    James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal also argues ( http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010527 scroll to “The Peoples Senate” ) that this change has been accompanied by a “countervailing trend: gerrymandering.” Gerrymandering of House districts has largely put the state legislatures in control of the election of representatives (although giving the appearance of election by the people). Taranto asserts that this effectively provides the kind of check and balance sought by the Founders, and that it would be folly to repeal the 17th Amendment until someone comes up with a solution to Gerrymandering.

    Reply
    1. David Avatar
      David

      Gerrymandering as an offset to the direct election of senators is a classic case of two wrongs not making a right – if we weigh down one end of the ship it is really not helping to then weigh down the other end in order to make the deck level – the result is a ship much closer to sinking. I do agree that we need to address congressional district gerrymandering but its existence is no excuse for codifying a change in the Constitution that negates the very form of government that the Constitution was intended to preserve.

      Reply
  3. Scott Miller Avatar
    Scott Miller

    As I reflect on these posts something comes to mind that is more disturbing. It seems as though, whether the Senators are popularly elected or chosen by the states’ House of Representatives, Senators no longer look to represent their respective states but rather represent their political parties. Coming from the small, Western state of Nevada, I would be significantly more happy if my Senators were more inclined to help Nevada, rather than Chuck Schumer or Mitch McConnell.

    But if my senators (and representatives) are beholden to the amorphous life-form of the national “party” I’m in a more troubled condition and more likely to be receiving the representation is desire. I believe (and maybe with too much of a simpleton mentality) that the democrats and republicans of Nevada, if truly representing the people and the state, are more inclined to have similar positions on issues that matter to the citizens of Nevada than they are if controlled by the “party” that is without responsibility to the citizens.

    I submit that gerrymandering with representatives who are focused on their states and their citizens is still a better solution than those representatives serving the party.

    Reply
    1. Reach Upward Avatar
      Reach Upward

      I’m inclined to agree.

      Reply
    2. David Avatar
      David

      I think you have highlighted a major problem. Senators and representatives seem to identify more with their parties than with their constituents. I think that is one of the reasons that we often see elected officials coming home to represent the Washington point of view to their constituents (I’ve seen that consistently in town hall meetings of various officials) rather than representing their constituents to Washington.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *