The Seventeenth Amendment

Get Down, You Uppity States

Before the adoption in 1913 of the Seventeenth Amendment to the US Constitution, the election of senators was determined by Article 1, Section 3, clause 1:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

In 1913 the Seventeenth Amendment was adopted, wherein the selection of senators was done by a direct vote of the people. The original intent, selection of the senators by the state legislatures, was meant to be part of the balancing act between the states and the federal government, the system of distributed power and checks and balances meant to deter the formation of authoritarian power in either the federal government or in local or state governments. It was expected that the senators would defend the interest of their own states. Many believe that the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment did much to shift the balance of power in the direction of the federal government at the expense of the states, to the detriment of all.

Below is the Wikipedia link on the Seventeenth Amendment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Senate

Wherein this is said:

The first Clause of Section Three provides that each state is entitled to have two senators, who would be elected by its state legislature (now by the people of each state), serve for staggered six-year terms, and have one vote each. Through these provisions, adopted following the Connecticut Compromise, the Framers sought to protect the sovereignty and interests of states.[41][42][43] This clause has been superseded by the Seventeenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, which, in part, provides as amended, that

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.[44]

Why change it? The thinking was that there was too much influence by big business on their selection, plus a frequent issue of senators coming and going at the behest of their states, leaving vacant Senate seats. Is there less influence by big business now? Is there really a down side to a more frequent change in senators? Maybe Mark Levin has the answer:

"The Seventeenth Amendment serves not the public's interest but the interests of the governing masterminds and their disciples. Its early proponents advanced it not because they championed 'democracy' or the individual, but because they knew it would be one of several important mechanisms for empowering the federal government and unraveling constitutional republicanism." ~ Mark Levin

The Left in the US is constantly on a rampage to eliminate the Electoral College since that would shut down the influence of the minority rural and small town areas. They realize that left-wing thought is more prevalent in large urban areas, so they always push for direct elections. Protecting minorities isn't exactly on the table unless it's useful.

It seems like it's back to the states rights issue; the senators were supposed to be active in protecting the rights of their own states, but now they want to be movers and shakers on the world stage. After the civil war the idea of states rights was often anathema since it was seen as a leading cause of the war, but we need to remember that states rights are meant as a balance of federal power.

I submit for your consideration the idea that serious thought should be given to the idea of rescinding it, which would require a constitutional amendment itself.

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." ~ Thomas Jefferson

In the issue of Big Government, we’re back to the idea of the human ant hill":

Stay Brave, Stay Free