Under the original design of the Constitution, the House of Representatives was chosen by direct election, but Senators were elected by the State Legislatures. This gave a natural check on Federal power vs. the States.
Senators were unlikely to vote for Federal legislation that conflicted with the power interests of the State legislatures, giving a balance between Federal and State power. Treaties and judges needed Senate approval, guarding the rights of the States at the highest level.
However, there were issues with this scheme: deadlocked State Legislatures could leave Senate seats empty, and elections for State legislators could become proxies for Senate elections. The 17th amendment removed the role of the State Legislatures and replaced it with the direct election of Senators.
There is now no structural check on Federal power over the States, besides an appeal to the courts (courts which are now vetted by popularly-elected Senators).
Should the 17th amendment be reformed in some way, to make the Senate more representative of the State governments again?
2
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
7 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
I voted to repeal the 17th. However, I realize the ship has sailed. Much of our problem is due to the two party system. The two parties, through mutual consent, have set both state and federal election processes up to ensure a shared monopoly. Senators have become nothing more than longer serving congresspersons, able to keep themselves in place through federal largesse. Along with repealing the 17th, I recommend further, having the state pay their salaries.
Harpoon
Level 6
Mar 11, 2019
2
While I believe the 17th should be repealed, I see this as problematic ...
As far as I can tell, from several different sources, the concept was that a State’s Constituents ... Citizens ... were, or were thought to be, more involved with THEIR State’s Legislature.
Prior to the War Between the States, Many people’s PRIMARY Allegiance was to Their STATE and only Secondarily to the Federal Government/Country.
AFTER the War, people came to understand that the Individual States seemed to have very little power ... had sublimated their authority to the Federal Government.
Since the “Real Power” in their eyes was now one of “Central Government”, they disengaged. I believe this is one of the reasons that we have such a poor turnout of voters even to this day. I believe they feel disenfranchised ... of no importance ... Since the Federal Government is doing such a crummy job, and their State has no “Teeth”, what’s the point?
Could it be that repealing the 17th would bring back “Pride in Ones’ State”?
Perhaps.
The way things are today however, I would tend to doubt it.
Bay0Wulf
Level 8
Mar 11, 2019
1
I vote for a balance. The power of the federal government over the states has increased unchecked, leaving states unable to govern in the best interests of their citizenry. It used to be said that all politics are local. Unfortunately, local self-sufficience has become next to impossible.
rixt53
Level 4
Mar 11, 2019
0
It is now impossible to be elected US Senator without millions of dollars of backing (read AIPAC or similar). The 17th should be repealed---but it never will be now, the Powers of the Purse are too large.
MarPep
Level 7
Mar 10, 2019
0
That purse won't be needed if the 17th is repealed?
Bye bye special interests, welcome back states interests
I didn't vote as I'm somewhat split on this issue. While I'm no fan of the Federal Government, giving more power to the states might not be the way to go either.
SpikeTalon
Level 10
Mar 10, 2019
0
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Free Speech Absolutists
7085 members
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.