Our nation, a republic – the United States of America! Just what is the significance of this description and name? A “republic” means that the citizenry of a country is governed by and maintains their control over their government through representatives chosen by them via democratic elections. The “United States” indicates that this is a nation not just of individual citizens but also of a collection of independent entities who have banded together for their mutual benefit and protection while maintaining their separate identity, rights, authority, power and limited sovereignty. It was to this end that the founders provided for the selection of those who would serve in the Senate of the new federal government to be chosen by the legislatures of the states so that they would become the guardians of the interests and sovereign rights of the states from the power of the central government. As I wrote last week, the men who set this system in place had several very strong reasons for doing so and was one area in the new Constitution that both Federalist and Anti-Federalist were in agreement. That this was the intent of such an arrangement, i.e. that election by the state legislatures was for the purpose of preserving state sovereignty, was argued by no less than the most ardent Federalist of them all, Alexander Hamilton:
“The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government” (The Federalist Papers, No. 9).
So what happened to bring about the change that we have today in which we elect our Senators by direct vote, in the exact same way in which we elect our representatives? Furthermore, is this a more wise method of selecting them and has it served to provide additional protection to our freedoms, or served to threaten them by increasing the power of the federal government over our lives? Let us examine the history and reasons behind the passage of the seventeenth amendment and you can decide for yourself the answer to these questions.
The resolution that Senators should be appointed by means of the direct election of the individual citizens in their respective states was first proposed in the House of Representatives as early as February 14, 1826, yet it was not until May 12, 1912 that the proposed amendment to the Constitution finally garnered the requisite two-thirds approval in both the House and Senate in order that it might be sent to the states for their approval or rejection. In this interval of time between 1826 and 1912, no less than 187 attempts were made to pass this change in our governmental makeup. That there were several justifiable and on the surface honorable motives for making such a change there can be no argument. So before turning our attention to whether or not the seventeenth amendment was a wise move or not, let us review a brief history behind the movement that through all these years strove to bring about this change.
As the decades passed following the ratification of the Constitution, the formation of that first Senate and the eventual adoption of this amendment under discussion, the various state legislatures gradually abdicated their responsibility in appointing those to be Senators and allowed the people to usurp their authority, mainly due to what we today often refer to as “politics”. As early as the mid-1830s’ those vying for an appointment to the Senate would go about the state “canvassing” support from among the populace to such an extent that if a representative to the state legislature wished to gain the support and vote of the people in his election bid he would have to pledge to support the appointment of the individual who though his “politicking” had swayed the minds of the citizenry. As time progressed the influence of “party bosses” and “special interests” came to add their weight to those wishing to be elected to or re-elected to state legislatures to support the senatorial candidate of those partied interests so that those in favor of direct election of Senators were able to rise the cry of a need for reform to push the amendment through to adoption. There was also a second major argument and that was that a failure to allow for direct election was “undemocratic” – that the people were not being given an adequate and proper voice in the process.
Let us first examine the perception that there was a need for this change in order to make our country more “democratic”. To make such an argument is first of all to belie a failure to understand just what kind of a government was established by the Constitution. The intent was not to establish a democracy as democracies are only viable in small societies, as evidenced most notably in ancient Greece, but rather a republic as, according to the great thinkers of that day and time (and still true to this day), it is the only suitable form of government for a society that is more diverse in character and number as is America. As Montesquieu stated in his work, The Spirit of the Laws, trying to gather all of the people together to discuss the business of the nation is neither appropriate nor feasible, and as such is a weakness in the nature of a complete democracy:
“…members of the legislative body must not be drawn from the body of the nation at large; it is proper of the inhabitants of each principal town to choose a representative from it. The great advantage of representatives is that they are able to discuss public business. The people are not at all appropriate for such discussions; this forms one of the great drawbacks of democracy” (Part II, Book 11, chapter 6).
If there is to be direct election of the members of the Senate, then it begs the question as to why have a Senate at all? Do not the members of the House represent the wishes, interests and liberties of the citizens who elect them? Are not then those representatives, chosen from smaller districts, more knowledgeable of these interests and concerns by virtue of being in a closer proximity to their constituents? Obviously this is true, so then the question must again be raised, for what purpose does the Senate serve if those in it as well as the House are chosen by the same people in the same fashion, and the answer is it merely duplicates the representation and is therefore an added burden and expense to the operation of the government. Some will argue that there must be a Senate separate from the House as the Constitution assigns to the Senate specific duties that are not within the power or scope of the House of Representatives. As true as this may be, it must be understood that those several responsibilities were given to a group that would be chosen under quite a different process, by different individuals and for representation of a different entity. By removing the process by which the Senate is comprised, these other areas of duties and purpose of representation are nullified and the need for a Senate is therefore rendered moot.
But what of the lofty goal of rendering the process and therefore the integrity of the Senate itself more just and free from corruption and undue influence peddling? Will anyone today say that we have a process whereby the election of those serving in the Senate is free from vice and the manipulation of certain powerful organizations and special interests? Indeed, in the election after the ratification of the seventeenth amendment there were twenty-five senators who were up for re-election and of that number two were defeated in their primary elections and all of the rest were re-elected by popular vote. So the clear question is, what changed? The answer is simple – absolutely nothing, and it has been so ever since. The same arguments that the Progressives in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries used to argue for the need of a change in the selection of senators can be leveled today against how senators are elected by popular vote. Today it is still about the money, the influence of the powerful and special interests and who you know that gets an individual elected to the Senate, just as the Progressives over a hundred years ago said of the system originally put in place by our more wise and thoughtful founders.
The passage of the seventeenth amendment has failed miserably to correct the alleged shortcomings into which the original system under the Constitution had evolved (and the charges of corruption were not as great or widespread as the Progressives made them out to be). What it has done is to destroy any vestige of the system of federalism that our founders set in motion. Their wise vision was to have a government within which existed several checks and balances so as to preserve their hard-fought freedom and liberties as well as those of their posterity. The legislative, executive and the judicial branches serve as a check against one another, the Senate and the House serve as checks against each other within the legislative branch and the House serves as the people’s bulwark against encroachment by the central government upon their individual rights as citizens while the Senate was designed to serve as the defender of the rights of the states as the ambassadors if you will of the states to the central government. By removing the bond between the states and their “ambassadors”, the Senators, this amendment has in effect destroyed the influence of the states and rendered them mere vassals of the central government, and in so doing brought the rights, freedom and liberties of us all into greater jeopardy of falling into the grasp of a tyrannical central government, consumed with the thirst for power and control over every facet of our lives. This purpose was succinctly stated by Roger Sherman, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 from the state of Connecticut, in a letter he wrote to John Adams in July of 1789:
“It appears to me the senate is the most important branch in the government, for aiding and supporting the executive, securing the rights of the individual states, the government of the United States, and the liberties of the people…. The senators being eligible by the legislatures of the several states, and dependent on them for reelection, will be vigilant in supporting their rights against infringement by the legislature or executive of the United States; and the government of the Union being federal, and instituted by the several states for the advancement of their interests, they may be considered as so many pillars to support it, and, by the exercise of the state governments, peace and good order may be preserved in places most remote from the seat of the federal government, as well as at the centre. And the municipal and federal rights of the people at large will be regarded by the senate, they being elected by the immediate representatives of the people, and their rights will be best secured by a due execution of the laws.”
In effect, the seventeenth amendment has served to do nothing more than to undermine the power of the tenth amendment:
“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.”
For these reasons, then, in order to re-establish the foundations upon which the security of our rights, freedom and liberties, one of the primary steps that must be taken is a repealing of the seventeenth amendment so that we may once again have the guardians of liberty against the menacing power of a central government standing “in the gap” in our stead.
-Epaminondas
(For a scholarly discourse on this topic I commend for your further reading a treatise from The Center for Constitutional Studies titled: “Democratizing the Constitution: The Failure of the 17th Amendment”, by C.H. Hoebeke – www.nhinet.org/hoebeke.htm)
