Blue Despair and Agony on Me, The Nail In The Coffin for States Rights The 17th Amendment Proposed 1912; Ratified 1913; The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. Candidates, organizations and individuals advocate repealing the 17th Amendment. Usually the reasoning is based on the problems with centralizing, ever-growing government, the move of the American republic towards a democracy, and the advocacy of State’s Rights. The repealing of the 17th Amendment is far from being accepted it did, however get national attention in 2004 when our very on U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) claimed that the 17th Amendment was to blame for the pathetic state of the U.S. Senate. Anyone who has read the U.S. Constitution will see we are a union of sovereign states, each guaranteeing ‘a republican form of government.’ The idea of the founders was to have a strictly limited federal government, with the states handling the bulk of governmental matters “hence the constitution calling the federal government the ‘agent’ of the states; a subordinate role for the federal government to the state governments.” The argument about State’s Rights usually falls on deaf ears as being a ‘Southern thing’ and an idea that died in the War Between the States. But that would only be true if the constitution died at the same time (which some would argue it did). To backtrack, the 17th Amendment is the provision that allows U.S. Senators to be directly elected by a state’s population. Prior to this amendment, senators were selected by a state’s legislature. This allowed the states, as independent entities, to have a more direct say in what the federal government could do. Basically, the senators were the state’s mouthpieces in Washington D.C., ensuring that the federal government was kept in its place. Remember, the U.S. Constitution set up a federal system of government, not a centralized system, to work with the member states of the union. Simply put, the states would instruct their senators how to vote and act on issues, and thereby have a tight rein on the senators and a strong say in how the federal government acted. The idea of checks and balances wasn’t just between the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of the federal government. Checks and balances were between the people (House of Representatives), the states (Senate) and the rule of law (the Judiciary). Having the senators more directly representing the interests of the states as entities themselves, rather than attempting to appeal to the general population of a state en masse, was a clear design by the founders for protecting State’s Rights. Any and all efforts to subvert this concept of balancing the interests of the people, the states as entities, and the union of states, is a betrayal of the U.S. Constitution, even the amending of the Constitution to allow the disruption of this balance. (Technically, the 17th Amendment was legal, but it upset the designed balance of interests, thus being contrary to the founder’s designs.) Amendments to address changing views on issues such as slavery, alcohol, voting rights, or clarifications of citizenship, procedures for the functioning of government, etc. reflect what the amendment process was for, and the founder’s anticipation of the need for some way to be flexible with the Constitution. However, the 17th Amendment changed the nature of the relationship between the people, the states, and the union. The founders would have objected to changing our relationship from a republic of republics to a mass democracy. It is well documented that the founders despised democracy as mob rule). Ironically, one of the arguments for direct elections of Senators was that the old system left Senators susceptible to corrupting influences by special interests. Direct elections certainly didn’t correct that, and in fact left them freer to sell themselves to whoever would fill their re-election coffers. The increase in federal power can be seen to grow at an increasingly faster rate after selection of Senators was removed from the state legislatures. Without this restriction on politicians, the senate became a political body unanswerable to the states, and no longer did Senators have their state’s interest at heart or fear having to answer to the elected body they were suppose to represent the state legislatures. Senators just became desirous of more and more power above and beyond the states, making the states subservient to their ‘agent,’ the federal government. Remember, it is the senate that ratifies treaties, confirms executive appointments and confirms judicial appointments. These items, within the federal government, were controlled by the states via their Senators. This is how the states had a say in what the federal government did, and how the federal government represented the union of states to the world. This is no longer so. The 17th Amendment cut the states out of the business of running the federal government. For all the abuse the South has taken over time, for standing by the ideals of the founders concerning State’s Rights, it would be some consolation to see the 17th Amendment repealed. It would put us back on the track to true liberty and the honoring of the Constitutional ideals the founders established, and would help to start putting the power back where it belongs: with the states. An interesting side note is that ironically the 17th Amendment, whether it gets repealed or not, is a backhanded acknowledgement of the reality that State’s Rights was not some misbegotten concept, but a political, constitutional concept the founders intended. The 17th Amendment highlights the fact that states were to have a role in controlling the federal government, were separate sovereign entities and were not mere provinces of some monolithic nation. Enactment of the 17th Amendment wasn’t just a blow to State’s Rights, but a blow to our individual rights as the federal government has grown and taken over our lives. Its repeal would be a vindication of the State’s Rights arguments presented by Jefferson, Madison, Calhoun, and other Southerners devoted to true Constitutional government, including the Confederates who fought a war to defend the ideals of the founding fathers, as well as their rights. The words “United States of America,” as used in the founding documents, do not refer to a single nation. They refer to the individual States in their united capacity. Information Sources
|
|
