The Patriot Post® · Repeal the 17th Amendment

A lot is going on this summer to keep Americans distracted from politics. Families enjoying road trips, visiting national parks, or cooking in the backyard aren’t paying much attention to the election cycle. But politicians from both parties are gearing up for this fall’s elections to see who holds onto power in Congress.

This includes 33 U.S. senators battling their opponents, pandering to their states, and making promises they can’t keep. They’ll take plenty of money from special interest groups. Senators, though, were never supposed to get bogged down in the politics of the day. In fact, from 1789 to 1913, they weren’t even elected by the people. Instead, state legislatures chose who would represent them in the upper chamber of Congress.

On the surface, it seems antithetical to democracy, but that’s the point. Democracies collapse over time due to the turbulent nature of political passions that divide people and allow the majority to oppress the minority.

To prevent this from occurring in the American Republic, our Founders created the House of Representatives to filter and temper the political passions and energies of the country. The Senate, meanwhile, would have unique powers such as approving presidential appointments, ratifying treaties, and conducting impeachment trials, giving that body a different function and purpose. All in all, the Senate was designed to be a deliberative, philosophical body where members didn’t act on a whim or feel pressure to vote one way or the other in response to a group of voters demanding action.

State legislatures chose senators as one of the Constitution’s checks and balances, diffusing power before it resulted in tyranny. It was a core component of federalism.

This all changed in 1913 because of the progressive political movement that swept the country, aiming to make our republican system of government more democratic. Once the 17th Amendment was ratified, U.S. senators could ignore the interests of their states and pander directly to the passions of the people.

“What happened in 1913 didn’t just change policy. It changed the architecture,” explains Jay Rogers at the Washington Examiner. “The building we live in today — the one with a $39 trillion national debt, a Senate that functions as a national legislature rather than a chamber of state sovereignty, and a central bank whose decisions reach into every household in America — was designed that year.” Rogers adds, “The senators who now serve are accountable to the same general electorate as House members, with a longer term and a larger constituency. They have no structural loyalty to state governments and every structural incentive to deliver federal resources to voters.”

In Federalist 62, the Constitution’s principal author, James Madison, wrote prophetic words capturing the state of the U.S. Senate today:

It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust. In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient.

Our Founders were deliberate in studying systems of government throughout history and were aware of the destructive nature of power. As a result, they created various mechanisms within our constitutional system — including federalism — to ensure our Republic would endure rather than burn out quickly, as most democracies do.

As Marc Wheat and Mitchell G. Bahnsen write at National Review, “The Senate was meant to be more incorruptible than the House precisely because it was insulated from the engineering of mass opinion. This does not mean insulated from the people’s interests, but from the people’s momentary passions.”

In recent weeks, eight House representatives signed onto a House resolution that would repeal the 17th Amendment. “The current system has given us six-year politicians more focused on national ambitions and the institution of the U.S. Senate than on the states they serve,” stated Texas Representative Brent Self, who introduced the resolution. “Our Founding Fathers designed the Senate to protect state sovereignty and act as a check on federal overreach. If senators are supposed to represent their states, then the states should choose them.”

Past efforts to repeal the 17th Amendment have failed, with none ever making it out of committee. If Congress doesn’t move it forward, two-thirds of the states would need to call for a convention of the states.

The biggest obstacle is overcoming the public’s lack of knowledge of our constitutional system and the concept of separation of powers. Democracy remains a powerful word that’s often misunderstood. That’s why Democrats criticize any move to keep our system aligned with the vision of our Founders as a “threat to democracy.” The original system of electing senators checked the government’s power, which is why progressive Democrats supported the 17th Amendment and oppose any repeal efforts.

In our 250th year of independence, we’ve learned quite a bit about the system of government left to us by our Founders. It’s not a perfect system, but one that’s endured longer than anyone could have imagined. The 17th Amendment takes away power from the states. Thus, restoring a check on power by repealing the 17th Amendment is an important step toward ensuring our great Constitution survives for generations to come.