by Walt Garlington
Interest in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution continues to grow as citizens and state and local government officials consider ways to protect their authority from federal intrusion. From Louisiana to New Hampshire to Washington state, 10th Amendment legislation is being crafted and approved to veto federal regulations and orders regarding firearms, medical marijuana, cap and trade, education, the sending of a state’s National Guard to war, health care, and more.
It should be clear from the items on the list above that a federal government of limited powers is not simply a concern peculiar to conservatives; liberals too have reason to resuscitate local governance. And one of the very best ways to help revive decentralization, in addition to nullification, is to repeal the 17th Amendment.
Until 1913, when the 17th Amendment was ratified, the citizens of the states elected U.S. senators indirectly: Voters elected the state legislators, and they in turn selected U.S. senators. From 1913 onward, voters have directly elected U.S. senators in statewide elections.
This change has led to a number of negative results, including
-Vastly increased federal power and vastly decreased state, local, and personal authority due to the state governments losing their representation in the federal government;
-The domination of Senate elections (and legislation) by forces outside of the particular states wherein elections are being held, e.g., out-of-state donations, political party operatives, and campaign consultants; and
-A decline of the influence of individual voters and small, local associations of voters over who is selected to be a senator from their state.
Under the 17th’s statewide electoral system, the individual voter is small and isolated, only one out of thousands or, in many cases now, millions of voters casting ballots. His influence in the election is marginal.
Now, repeal the 17th, and you amplify this individual’s influence many times over. For instead of one voice attempting to be heard over every other voter’s voice in the state, he is now one voice in the much smaller group of voters who reside in the districts of his state legislators, who would select the U.S. senator.
Individuals and small associations matter little to the statewide candidate but are important to the state representative and state senator who actually lives among them, knows them, and is known by them. The state legislator must take them and their views seriously, regarding Senate elections and other legislative matters, for they hold great
electoral power over him. So individuals and small, local groups would grow more influential in U.S. Senate elections if the 17th were repealed, and outside interests less so.
With repeal would come three other benefits. First, a U.S. Senate representing the state governments would likely mean the end of many of the federal mandates and programs that currently stifle policy innovation, mandate uniformity, and strangle budgets in states,
parishes, etc.
A crazy quilt of locally devised laws stretching across the United States may nauseate the federal bureaucrat who delights in the efficiency resulting from bland uniformity, but it would be pleasing to the citizens who would live under the aegis of those laws. Repealing the 17th would allow liberal, moderate, libertarian, and conservative communities to live under the laws of their own choosing rather than the choosing of the imperial few (of whatever political philosophy) in D.C.
Second, state legislatures endowed with the high responsibility of selecting U.S. senators, not to mention creating policy in fields newly freed from the rule of D.C., would naturally attract the more capable men of society to seek these offices (though unfortunately the more power hungry too), as it is with federal offices now.
Third, indirect elections generally result in well qualified candidates filling the positions in question. This is as true of U.S. Supreme Court justices chosen by the president as it was of U.S. senators chosen by state legislatures. It is no accident that the preeminent U.S. senators in our history – e.g., Randolph, Calhoun, Clay, Webster, etc. – all appeared prior to the 17th, while demagogues like Sen. Schumer and hollow men like Sens. Bayh and Frist have filled the Senate after its ratification.
Decentralization is an essential element for restoring self-government (and good government in general) in the United States. And U.S. senators chosen by state legislatures would be a tremendous boon to decentralization. Repeal the 17th Amendment; restore liberty. All citizens would be the beneficiaries.
Walt Garlington is the founder of the Louisiana State Sovereignty Committee.
Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given
I'm trying to wrap my mind around how citizens not directly voting for their US Senators is a good idea. The explaination given seems ackward to me. Please, elaborate. Thank you.
Regarding the folly of voters at large voting for federal senators, please consider the following. The Founders had made the 10th A. to reserve the lion’s share of government power to serve the people to the states, not the Oval Office and Congress. This is important because Chief Justice Marshall had established the following case precedent, now wrongly ignored, which appropriately prohibits Congress from basing taxes on state power issues.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” –Chief Justice Marshall, GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 1824. http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html
So why is the federal government now laying taxes in the name of things like public education and public healthcare since these things are state power issues?
The bottom line problem, IMO, is that thanks to the anti-state sovereignty 17th A., voters are electing federal senators who are as clueless about state sovereignty as the voters are. So where the federal senate would have represented the interests of state lawmakers by blocking illegal federal tax legislation before the 17th A. was ratified, as a consequence of state legislatures losing their voice in Congress because of the 17th A., there is no house in Congress to stop Congress from stealing state taxes in the form of federal taxes. This is evidenced by FDR’s dirty federal spending policies.
Mr. Nash…you ask how citizens not voting directly for their Senators is a good idea.
It requires that one understand the role of the two houses of our Congress as envisioned by the Framers. The House of Representatives was envisioned as the "Peoples' House." It was to represent the interests of We The People, one of the parties to that great compact we know as the Constitution. The Senate was to represent the interests of the States as seperate political entities, not merely as a group of citizens. As the House existed to serve the interests of We the People, the Senate existed to serve the interests of the several States.
The current system of direct election has left us with a political system wherein both houses of Congress serve the interests of We The People and the States are marginalized to the point of irrelevance. National politics has become little more than an exercise to determine which passing fad can most effectively sway the masses.
Another benefit I just realized is that the appointment of Senators by the states helped prevent issues and Senators from being "bought" by special interests. Sometimes appointments are good.
Witness what happened to legislation to allow Congress to audit Federal Reserve transactions more than 6 months old – Seeing as how the Fed now has unsupervised power to print and issue as many dollars to whoever they like, it seems reasonable for Congress to be able to look at the Fed's books at transactions that are six months old, huh?
The bill had over 290 congressional sponsors, but it was stymied in Congress by the Obama administration, then killed in the Senate by the Frank/Dodd over-regulation act.
Makes you wonder, as Goldman Sachs donated nearly a million $ to the Obama campaign, and Frank & Dodd are both members of Obama's party, and who knows how many other lawmakers got money from the banksters?
If the Senators had been appointed by the states, we probably would have been looking at the Fed's books by now. Repeal the tenth and seventeenth! Audit the Fed! Above all, Ron Paul in 2012!
Senators aren't supposed to represent the people, they're supposed to represent the interests of the State. Allowing citizens to vote directly removed the voice of the States from Congress, thus allowing massive power grabs by Washington from our States. If States controlled the Senate, would the States really allow Congress to dictate so many mandates and restrictions on them? Would Congress actually have the power to require States to spend money in certain ways? I doubt it. But since States don't have a voice, Congress does as it wishes.
The flip side of this is that the 17th amendment was passed because partisan infighting within the State legislatures often left States without a Senator for extended periods of time. Indiana once went 20 months with an empty Senate seat because of this. Oregon saw it as such a problem they they began the public popularity contest before the 17th was even written. The original system didn't work well, but when States went without a voice, it was by their own doing. Permanently removing the voice of the States was not the right answer to the problem.
William Cooper explains it perfectly.
I can only add that we should not tinker with the Founder's scheme lightly. When we change something in that scheme, it's likely to break it. The 17th amendment is a perfect example of the unintended consequences of changing the Constitution.
The Founders very carefully considered this issue (and many, many others) and cleverly provided for the state legislatures to elect Senators for several reasons, as Mr. Cooper briefly explains.
While no system is perfect, the results of the 17th amendment have been extremely negative. It's possible the power grabs by the feds might not have happened without the 17th amendment.
As Mr. Cooper explains, a US Senator who 'dumps' on his state would not remain in office long if he has to answer directly to the state legislators who must deal with the ramifications of federal actions such as mandates.
Have you ever taken some gadget apart and wondered what that one little, insignificant-looking piece was? When you reassembled the gadget and left out that seemingly-insignificant piece, the gadget stops working or, worse, destroys itself! At that point, you get it; you now know WHY that piece was in there but it's too late.
That's how so much of the Constitution is. People just don't seem to get how sharp the Drafters were and how carefully they designed and built their 'gadget.' They weren't perfect (for example, they kicked the slavery issue down the road) but they were damn smart.
I agree. There are a lot of functions the senate does that makes it a perfect body to represent the state such as approving treaties, picking federal judges, impeachment, and etc. Having this body be chosen by voters or federal citizens eliminates any state government influence within the federal government which removes an important check against the federal government.
The year 1913 was a very busy and productive one for the centralizers, as this article shows. We have been paying for it ever since.
In the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention of 1788, Mr. Ames made the following statement concerning the original method of electing the members to the Senate and the consequences if the people elected them:
"But whom, in that case, would they represent? Not the legislatures of the states, but the people. This would totally obliterate the federal features of the Constitution. What would become of the state governments, and on whom would devolve the duty of defending them against the encroachment of the federal Government? A consolidation of the states would ensue, which, it is conceded, would subvert the new Constitution, and against which this very article, so much condemned, is our best security. Too much provision cannot be made against a consolidation. The state governments represent the wishes, and feelings, and local interests, of the people. They are the safeguard and ornament of the Constitution; they will protract the period of our liberties; they will afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights. "
While repealing the ill-conceived, anti-state sovereignty 16th and 17th Amendments is ultimately what we want, please consider the following. Why not elect 2010 mid-term federal and state lawmakers who will help to restore state sovereignty by simply ignoring these amendments in the meanwhile? After all, corrupt federal lawmakers are essentially ignoring the rest of the Constitution at this time anyway.
How would you propose they ignore those amendments? to ignore the 16th amendment means you're either intentionally not paying taxes or that you're hoping the IRS will just go away if you pretend they're not there. And the 17th amendment is being acknowledged by anyone who tries to get elected as a federal Senator.
the only realistic solution is to hope for Congressional candidates who will propose nullification amendments, or hope that enough of "us" take over our respective State governments to call for a new Constitutional Convention.
Regarding the “repealing” of the 16th and 17th Amendments by ignoring them until they can actually be repealed, I managed to find the following link which I had run across a few days ago.
Lawmaker believes Legislature should select U.S. senators
http://verdenews.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=34959
AZ Rep. David Stevens’ approach to “repealing” the 17th A. is to change the nomination process for senators.
I’ll volunteer my 2 cents later.
Whether we like it or not, those Amendments are (rightly or wrongly) considered the law of the land now. When we begin violating the Constitution, we then have no leg to stand on when criticizing the other side when they violate the Constitution. A moral high ground is never the wrong answer. It needs to be done in one of two ways: either the original way (a true revolution), or using the Founding Father's original methods as so beautifully crafted in the inspired Constitution. It doesn't take a super majority to effect major change. Figures I've seen suggest that only about 1/3 of the population supported the Revolution, 1/3 opposed it, and 1/3 were apathetic. But "our' 1/3 won. The hard part is getting about 750,000 people (1/3 of the over-18 population) in strong, active support of REAL change (back to original construction and intent). And we sure as heck ain't gonna get 750,000 people willing to take up arms and literally take back government!
Though ignoring the problems won't make them go away nor fix a broken system, I would like to point out that the 16th was never ratified and thus is not a legal amendment at all. The rules for ratification are clear and concise and those requirements were not met. I truly hope that some peaceful manner of resolution will set this nation back on the right path, but I can't recall any tyrant throughout all of history who has given what is rightfully the people's to the people without giving up their head first. Sic Semper Tyrranis.
Never ratified huh? exactly what requirement wasn't met? and why did nobody try to raise this as a valid legal issue for 64 years? There are some who claim the 17th was never ratified either. The facts are that 42 States ratified the 16th and 37 for the 17th. 36 States was the required number based on the 48 States the Union had at the time. most importantly, both amendments are in full effect and no argument otherwise will ever gain anyone any political ground.
I'm a full supporter or repealing both amendments, and if we're to get widespread support from the general public in efforts to have those amendments repealed, we need to cast off anything that could be seen as some fringe, extremist conspiracy theory. People need to be educated about the value and virtue of repealing the 16th and 17th, and why it's best for the future of our children.
I am in total agreement – the 16th and 17th amendments need to go and the only way to do that is to pressure our reps & senators in Congress to pass amendments to repeal them. However, this will be a daunting task, and as you commented in a prior reply, the best method is to keep electing new reps & senators until we get enough of them who will follow through on this.
Pressuring Congress is not the only way to get this done. The states can do it without any help from Congress. It takes 2/3 of the states to request a national convention to propose an amendment to the Constitution. Then 3/4 of them must ratify it. If enough states want an amendment, they can do it without help from Congress. This is one of the checks and balances built into our system of government.
For a constitutional amendment to be properly ratified, the verbiage of that amendment must be identical in all states as agreed. This was not the case in these amendments; various states changed the wording of the amendments before passing them, or agreed to them only if the wording was changed. The number of states that accepted the amendments “as worded” were less than the requisite number of states needed to pass the amendments into the Constitution. There were not enough states that passed the amendments “as worded” to equal a supermajority of states; therefore, the amendments were never “Poperly”ratified.
While we're at it, we also need to get an amendment in place for term limits as well. Getting this done will also be difficult. Calling for a Constitutional Convention is even more daunting as, according to the Heritage Guide to the Constitution, no such efforts (which have been many) have ever suceeded (the funny thing is, the closest we ever came to having a convention was a call for the direct election of senators which was just one state shy of the required 2/3 needed to call for a convention when Congress passed the 17th amendment and sent it to the states for ratification!).
I dealt with this issue of term limits and the process of amending the Constitution in my weekly blog post for this week at http://anantifederalist.wordpress.com. I hope to post an essay on this issue regarding the 17th amendment and how it would be viewed by our Anti-Federalist forefathers this coming week and appreciate the information gleaned here from this site.
Educating our fellow citizens plays a significant role in getting the right people elected. But we can do it at the State level and bypass Congress, and it's much easier to take over and change our State governments than the Congress.
Along with term limits, we need to make them "work" longer than a measly 5 years before getting fully vested retirement benefits. They shouldn't be eligible for anything that our men and women in the military don't get.
Educating our fellow citizens plays a significant role in getting the right people elected. But we can do it at the State level and bypass Congress, and it's much easier to take over and change our State governments than the Congress.
Along with term limits, we need to make them "work" longer than a measly 5 years before getting fully vested retirement benefits. They shouldn't be eligible for anything that our men and women in the military don't get.
William, you are so right on the money – education of our fellow citizens is vital. As the prophet of old said, "My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge"!
As far as their benefits go, why not just take away their cushy benefits and make them live under the same benefits "afforded" to us by the laws and regulations they enact – then see how quickly we get reform of the social security system, etc!! They certainly do not deserve better than what those who put their lives on the line in branches of our military receive (and I'm especially keen on that as I'm the father of a former US Marine).
Hi folks. The AZ state legislature has produced a bill to partially work around the 17th Amendment. The legislation itself may be viewed here:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/le…
In short it would allow the sitting state legislators of a particular political party to select that party’s U.S. Senate candidate for the general election. A statewide popular vote would still be held to decide who will be the senator from among the candidates of all the parties, thus complying with the 17th Amendment. But this would be a step toward greater representation of the state legislatures in the U.S. Senate, a building block toward ultimate repeal of the 17th Am. AND it is something that can be done at the state gov't level – there would be no need to try to convene a constitutional convention, etc.
We should try our hardest to get this implemented in our respective states as soon as possible.
Regards,
Walt
Some of this amendment looks to be, as you said, a good partial work around the 17th amendment. But, as I read it, it also would have the legislature determine the candidates for all elected offices in the State which I would consider a very scary proposition. I would be outraged if my State legislature was to decide who would be the candidates for my local council and mayor.
"The Legislature shall provide for the nomination of candidates for all elective state, county, and city offices, including candidates for United States Senator and for Representative in Congress."
I agree with you Mr. Cooper that there are some flaws to be avoided. But this legislation is the best idea I've seen yet regarding the 17th Amendment. I hope you will propose a modified form of the bill to your state legislators and others.
Thanks for the feedback,
Walt
Thank you for the AZ information. I just sent a letter to my Minnesota Governor, Senator, Repesentative, and State Governor candidates a request to implement a limited version (U.S. Senator only) of the AZ bill.
Excellent news Mr. Kirk! Thank you for joining this effort. Don't let them off the hook, though: Follow up with a phone call, etc. to make sure they pay proper attention to what you sent you them. And if you know anyone else who is interested in decentralization / limited government, ask them to send letters to the above officials in MN also.
Once again, thank you so much for taking the initiative on this legislation.
Walt
A number of you are talking around and close to perhaps the most significant point, but I don't see it mentioned explicitly. The reason (and beauty) behind the 17th Amendment is a couple of those fundamental principles we all (should have) heard in school while growing up: "balance of power" and "check and balance." The Constitution was beautifully crafted to create a self-balancing and self-checking system. Like a mobile, you can knock any one element of the mobile out of balance, but in time the mobile will revert back to its original position as it settles down – i.e. it rebalances back to its original state. We tend to think of the check and balance system in an over-simplified manner: legislative, executive, and judicial balancing each other. But the original method for selecting senators put a further check and balance element in the mix – specifically, the states themselves. Having two bodies in Congress – both elected by popular vote – not only shifts the power to the federal level as noted by several writers before this post, it also allows for the entire Congress to be selected by the easily manipulated masses (especially the "dumb-masses"). In essence then, the check and balance system of government consisted of not just three entities, but four: legislative, executive, judicial, and states. Each has the inherent power to help block or create new laws. The 17th Amendment took out one of the fundamental checks and balances – the states.
Why would I want my state legislators, arguably one of the most corrupt political bodies in the world, appoint my representation in the Senate? My state is so Gerrymandered towards the Republican Party it's ridiculous- a Democrat would never win a Senate appointment. Or is that what this repeal effort is all about ?
That's how it originally was Barrett. If you're state legislature is so heavily Republican, then I would guess there's a few people in your state that keep voting it so. The point is for the state government to have a say so in Congress as a check against too much federal power. We've already got the money fest popularity contest in the House, we don't need two of them. If your state legislature is so corrupt, then it's the duty of you and other citizens in your state to expose it, oppose re-electing incumbents, and run for office yourself if necessary.
The amendment we were just discussing would actually be a compromise, allowing the each group of party members in the legislature choose the candidate for their party, but then let the people decide between them, basically just eliminating the primaries. This still doesn't return the balance of power, but it's closer than the system currently in place.
Personally, I would like to see it become by executive appointment with state senate approval. The people of the state have much louder voices within the state than across the nation, and can much more easily change the balance of power within the state. And, as stated, the Senators in Congress are not supposed to represent the people.
That's how it originally was Barrett. If you're state legislature is so heavily Republican, then I would guess there's a few people in your state that keep voting it so. The point is for the state government to have a say so in Congress as a check against too much federal power. We've already got the money fest popularity contest in the House, we don't need two of them. If your state legislature is so corrupt, then it's the duty of you and other citizens in your state to expose it, oppose re-electing incumbents, and run for office yourself if necessary.
The amendment we were just discussing would actually be a compromise, allowing the each group of party members in the legislature choose the candidate for their party, but then let the people decide between them, basically just eliminating the primaries. This still doesn't return the balance of power, but it's closer than the system currently in place.
Personally, I would like to see it become by executive appointment with state senate approval. The people of the state have much louder voices within the state than across the nation, and can much more easily change the balance of power within the state. And, as stated, the Senators in Congress are not supposed to represent the people.
I agree, the Senate was supposed to represent the states. Since 1913 no one in Washington represents the state's interest. The "power to the people" movement that created the 17th amendment was miss-guided. Modern Senators represent themselves, seeking pork barrel legislation to win the "bread and circus" crowd back home. They seem to owe nothing to the state government and frequently work against them.
Here is a nutshell history taken from Wikipedia as to why the 17th amendment was passed, can any one in this forum make some suggestions as to how we could prevent the same problems from recurring today that led to the amendments adoption in the first place? Please read this history as it may change your mind as to why the 17th amendment was needed in the first place. I have split it into multiple comments as it won't all fit into the space alloted
HISTORY FROM WIKIPEDIA:
Originally, each Senator was to be elected by his state legislature to represent his state, providing one of the many American governmental checks and balances. The delegates to the Convention also expected a Senator elected by his state's legislature would be able to concentrate on the governmental business at hand without direct, immediate pressure from the populace of his state, also aided by a longer term of six years than the two year term afforded to members of the House of Representatives.
This process worked without major problems through the mid-1850s, when the American Civil War was in the offing. Because of increasing partisanship and strife, many state legislatures failed to elect Senators for prolonged periods. For example, in Indiana the conflict between Democrats in the southern half of the state and the emerging Republican Party in the northern half prevented a Senate election for two years. That partisanship led to contentious battles in the legislatures, as the struggle to elect Senators reflected the increasing regional tensions in the lead up to the Civil War.
After the Civil War, the problems multiplied. In one case in the mid-1860s, the election of Senator John P. Stockton from New Jersey was contested on the grounds that he had been elected by a plurality rather than a majority in the state legislature. Stockton defended himself on the grounds that the exact method for elections was murky and varied from state to state. To keep this from happening again, the Congress passed a law in 1866 regulating how and when Senators were to be elected from each state. This was the first change in the process of senatorial elections. While the law helped, there were still deadlocks in some legislatures and accusations of bribery, corruption, and suspicious dealings in some elections. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906, and 45 deadlocks occurred in 20 states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating Senators. Beginning in 1899, Delaware did not send a senator to Washington for four years.
HISTORY OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 17TH AMENDMENT CONTINUED:
Reform efforts began as early as 1826, when direct election was first proposed. In the 1870s, voters sent a petition to the House of Representatives for popular election. From 1893 to 1902, the popularity of this idea increased considerably. Each year during that period, a constitutional amendment to elect Senators by popular vote was proposed in Congress, but the Senate resisted greatly. In the mid-1890s, the Populist Party incorporated the direct election of Senators into its platform, although neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party paid much notice at the time. Direct election was also part of the Wisconsin Idea championed by the Republican progressive Robert M. La Follette, Sr. and the Nebraskan Republican reformer George W. Norris. In the early 1900s, Oregon pioneered direct election of Senators, and it experimented with different measures over several years until success in 1907. Soon thereafter, Nebraska followed suit, and it laid the foundation for other states to adopt measures for direct election of Senators.
After the turn of the century, support of Senatorial election reform grew rapidly. William Randolph Hearst expanded his publishing empire with Cosmopolitan, which became a respected general-interest magazine at that time, and which championed the cause of direct election with muckraking articles and strong advocacy of reform. Hearst hired a veteran reporter, David Graham Phillips, who wrote scathing pieces on Senators, portraying them as corrupt pawns of industrialists and financiers. The pieces became a series titled "The Treason of the Senate," which appeared in several monthly issues of the magazine in 1906.[2]
Increasingly, Senators were elected based on state referenda, similar to the means developed by Oregon. By 1912, as many as 29 states elected Senators either as nominees of party primaries, or in conjunction with a general election. As representatives of a direct election process, the new Senators supported measures that argued for new legislation, but in order to achieve total election reform, a constitutional amendment was required.
The Congress had resisted proposing the amendment and so the states pushed to take action into their hands. Usually only the Congress proposes amendments, but two thirds of the states can call for a new constitutional convention to propose amendments (in either case, ratification by three-fourths of the states is required for adoption). By 1910, 31 states had called for such a convention (one short of the then-required number), putting additional pressure on the Congress to propose the amendment.[3]
Consequently, in 1911, Senator Joseph L. Bristow from Kansas offered a resolution, proposing an amendment. The notion enjoyed strong support from Senator William Borah of Idaho, himself a product of direct election. Eight Southern Senators and all of the Republican Senators from New England, New York and Pennsylvania opposed Bristow's resolution. Nevertheless, the Senate approved the resolution largely because of the Senators who had been elected by state-initiated reforms, many of whom were serving their first terms, and therefore were more willing to support direct election. After the Senate passed the amendment resolution, the measure moved to the House of Representatives.
The House initially had fared no better than the Senate in its early discussions of the proposed amendment. During the summer of 1912, the House finally passed the amendment and sent it to the States for ratification. The campaign for public support was aided by Senators such as Senator Borah and the political scientist George H. Haynes, whose scholarly work on the Senate contributed to passage of the amendment.[1]
On April 8, 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment was adopted, upon its ratification by Connecticut, a year and a half prior to the 1914 Senate election.
An interesting argument – the 17th amendment certainly has been followed by an unprecedented increase in federal power at the expense of state autonomy. I have to wonder about Garlington's examples of preeminent Senators chosen by State governments. Daniel Webster is a good start, although probably best known for compromise on regional issues like Jefferson's despised embargo and the 'tariff of abomination,' compromise based on national interest, not representing the interests of his home state. John Calhoun, more than any other American, is responsible for the vilification of the idea of 'states' rights.' Calhoun's use of 'states' rights' to defend slavery as a 'positive good' has done more damage to the cause of federalism than the 17th amendment. Henry Clay will always be remembered for his central role in the corrupt bargain of 1824, not for zealously representing the interests of his state. Garlington wisely left Senator Heyburn from Idaho off of his list. Heyburn's fight against Teddy Roosevelt's Forest Service could be seen as a fight for states' rights, but in reality Heyburn represented mining & timber companies, not the state of Idaho. With the exception of Webster, Garlington's examples of senators chosen by state governments don't make a very strong case for repeal.
Here's more reasons to repeal the hideous 17th Amendment:
1. With no statewide campaigns, the cost of choosing senators would drop to nearly zero.
2. When senators were appointed by the legislatures, they were totally accountable to those legislatures, who could remove them from office at any time. Compare that to the extreme difficulty of recalling a corrupt or rogue elected senator.
3. In states with one big city, that city often outvotes the rest of the state (think NYC, Chicago, Detroit or Omaha). So whoever carries the city generally carries the state in an at-large election. Without the 17th, a wannabe senator would have to appeal to the entire legislature, not just big-city voters. IMHO, under such a system the NY legislature would never have appointed Hillary and the Illinois legislature would never have appointed Obama. (Feel free to think up your own examples.)
Other amendments worthy of repeal are the 23rd (those living in the District of Corruption should vote absentee in their home states, as military personnel do) and the 24th (only taxpayers should be allowed to vote, as per John Stuart Mill).
For the love of Pete, can America not see what is about to happen to them? All in the name of “democracy.” It has been in the making for some time now, but let’s start with Supreme Court decisions;
(a) Corporations are people
(b) Money is protected under the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as “political expression.”
(c) the Citizen’s United decision
And now, an attempt to revive “nullification” which under John C. Calhoun circa 1840s. Remember this played a central role in the onset of the Civil War.
Is history about to repeat itself? Or, does it really matter in this day and time where winning is the value that has risen to prominence in the pantheon of American values, many of which, I might add, are questionable.
It’s not coincidence 1913 was also the year the Federal Reserve act was also signed into law as well.