Sarah Bailey Check our Balance

Repealing the 17th Amendment

William Gladstone said, “The American Constitution is the most wonderful work ever

struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.”1 Alexis DeTocqueville dedicated a

two volume work titled Democracy in America in which he addresses his findings on how

America works as a country and why it is so praiseworthy. However, Benjamin Franklin gave

this warning when asked what type of government they created, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

The United States Constitution created a one of a kind government that took its

foundations from historical and present governments, brilliant philosophers, theological debates

and basic principles. Out of these principles the governing system of checks and balances was

installed in the Constitution to guarantee one branch of government could not usurp power or

become corrupted. It also put power with the states to check the federal government. However,

one of the original checks and balances was removed with the 17th amendment to the constitution

and the repercussions have led us right to a pitfall our founding fathers warned us about, a large

central government and states that have no power.

The goal of the founding fathers was to have more of a Federalist system with individual

states and a small central government with limited powers. The thought was to have senators

represent the states and the representatives represent the people within the federal government. If

states did not feel their senators were keeping the state’s best interest in mind they could call for

an immediate removal. In 1913 the 17th amendment changed the way senators were voted into

office making them directly elected by the people in the same fashion as the House of

Representatives.

1 (William Ewart Gladstone: Life and Public Services, ed. Thomas W. Handford [Chicago: The Dominion Co., 1899], p. 323).

The impact this change has had is notable in several ways. First, senators no longer have

to keep the state’s best interest in mind. If a senator votes for an unconstitutional bill nothing

major happens, at least not until their term is up and even then it is rare. Senators are in office for

6 years and since the 17th amendment history has proven that it is difficult to remove an

incumbent, in 2010 84% of incumbent senators were re-elected. (OpenSecrets.Org) Whereas in

1835 Senator Pelog Sprague from Main was asked to resign when he voted against his state

legislators wishes in the famous Andrew Jack vs. the Bank of the United States vote.

(DiLorenzo).

Second, the federal government has usurped power from the states. This check originally

guaranteed that the states would have representation within the federal government because the

federal government cannot be trusted. It is not enough to have checks and balances within the

three branches of the federal government because they belong to the same entity. As history has

noted, solitary central governments tend to grow themselves and seek power taking it away from

any source possible. A swing in power that is easily noted today by the federal government

overturning states decisions to deny marriage to gay couples, legalize abortion and citizens

choices for doctor assisted suicide. The tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States

clearly states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited

by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The intention of the

founding fathers was to limit the powers of the federal government and to leave the rest to the

states; however, with the ratification of the 17th amendment the federal government has had the

ability to usurp power from the states because states no longer have representation within the

federal government.

Now, it is important to note that while senators and representatives are directly

responsible to the people and this may be more of a democracy it is not necessarily the best

system. Speaking to this issue Mr. Williamson said, “The different modes of representation in

the different branches will serve as a mutual check.” (Madison) Without this mutual check things

go without question. For example, senators are aware that they now have to please their

constituents to become reelected and what makes a happy constituent? Getting what they want.

Making constituents happy generally leads to an appropriation of money, one that should have

been checked by the states.

Since the amendment in 1913 the amount of

money appropriated by the federal

government has been outrageous. While it

takes time for senators to change and

become comfortable with direct election, it

is clear that by 1919 our Nations money

appropriations have become unchecked and

unruly. It nearly quadrupled the amount of

outstanding debt from the previous high in

13 years. It went from $5,717,770,279.52 to

$27,390,970,113.12 (Treasury Direct).

Before the change it was rather consistent

but once the change was ratified the debt

only sky rocketed from there.

Figure 1 Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1900-1949 (Treasury Direct)

If the Nation has been impacted in such a way why then was the 17th amendment purposed and

ratified?

The state legislatures came to frequent deadlocks when selecting a senator. As a result,

they went without representation. The deadlocks occurred because of the election process. A

voice vote would be taken and if that did not yield a strong candidate they would move to a

concurrent vote. This type of vote gave minority groups power because they then knew who to

support or oppose based on bribery. There were a total of 71 deadlocks from 1885-1912

(DiLorenzo). Obviously, it was a problem. But, the solution they found was to change the entire

process by eliminating the delicately thought out check and balance system of the constitution

that our founding fathers carefully put together. Changing this balance changed the federalist

form of our government and gave power to the federal government and removed it from the

states. If we are to reverse this and give power and control back to the states the 17th amendment

must be repealed. Unless that happens, the federal government will continue to go unchecked,

usurp power and appropriate money without reserve.

Works CitedDiLorenzo, Thomas J. "Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment." 2005. lewrockwell.com. 20 July 2014.

Madison, James. "Notes of Debates." n.d. 77.

OpenSecrets.Org. "Reelection Rates Over The Years." 2012. OpenSecrets.Org. Document. July 2014.

Treasury Direct. "Historical Debt Outstanding ." n.d. Treasurydirect.gov.

William Ewart Gladstone: Life and Public Services, ed. Thomas W. Handford [Chicago: The Dominion Co., 1899], p. 323.