I wrote about it over 15 years ago, and I have recently begun to wonder why there have been no efforts to abolish it, since it has never been accurately followed. I’ve changed a few things, but this piece is important. The 17th Amendment was ratified April 8, 1913, and the 16th income tax Amendment was ratified the same date. Both of which should probably never been ratified. The 17th reads as follows:
“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 required for the electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislators.
“When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate the executive authority of each State shall issue writ 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.”
Article One, Section Three of the Constitution, in regard to electing Senators, says, “The Senate of the Unites 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 other words, the Founders wrote into the Constitution, that the various state legislatures controlled the Senate, and not the voters. The Founders believed in the Tenth Amendment as a virtual religion. It 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 states were to be supreme, and state legislatures were to have control of half of the Congress, namely the Senate, rather than having both houses being elected by the electorate. Why? Because the Founders intended that state legislatures would appoint Senators, and instruct them on how to vote. This was to safeguard against the corruption of Senators by special interests seeking federal legislation that would be good for them, but bad for the general public in a Senator’s state. If they voted against their state and for another, they might quickly lose their seat.
If the 17th Amendment were followed, and state legislatures controlled the Senate, there would probably not be any earmarks, “Obama Care,” food stamps, hundreds if not thousands of federal offices, programs, bureaucracies and welfare schemes, which have bankrupted our nation. The trillions of dollars in hideous spending, voted upon by the Senate, would probably not have happened, since such a vote would not be beneficial to their state. Roger Sherman wrote in 1789, that because Senators were appointed by the state legislatures, they “Will be vigilant in supporting their (states’) rights against infringement by the legislature or executive of the United States.”
The original Constitution, limited Senators’ ability to sell their votes to special interest groups, corporations, and industries outside their state. If a Senator went to Washington and voted against the interest of their own state’s legislature, they could be replaced on short notice by the state legislature, which appointed them! No election would be necessary. A bad vote or a bad attitude, and out you go! Senators didn’t have to raise campaign funds from every possible source, after the 17th Amendment was passed. They would be APPOINTED, not elected, and could be fired instantly if they voted or acted against their own state. This is how it should be NOW, if the 17th was followed and Senators were be answerable to their own state legislatures, not a President or vague nationwide voter opinions.
The huge fund raising, bribery and corruption in the U.S. Senate, would not be possible if the 17th Amendment made the Senate be controlled h their state legislature. Would we have gone to Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, or Afghanistan, if there were no 17th Amendment? Probably not, because the citizenry was against all of them, and Senators from all of those states would have voted against going to these wars, and maybe even World War One, which Woodrow Wilson got us into, and most were against it. Article One, Section Seven, gives the Congress the power to raise revenue in the form of federal taxes, but these bills have to be passed by the Congress of both houses, and the 17th Amendment would make approval of federal taxes far more difficult if a Senator decided that such taxes would not be good for their state. I will not go into the ‘Filibuster’ or Senate majority vote to obtain a Senate approval, as it is not in the Constitution other than various situations such as impeachment, Constitution additions etc, which are rarely used.
The 17th Amendment is still there and of course not obeyed. State legislatures do not appoint Senators, but they depend on their state’s votes, not the legislature’s appointments. There have been many movements to abolish the 16th and 17th Amendments, and naturally, they will be here forever and the 17th will be simply ignored, and Senators will campaign in their own states for re-election. If the 17th were obeyed and state legislatures appointed Senators, the state legislators would be campaigning for re-election, not the Senators. I wrote the above as a simple illustration of what could be if our Constitution were explicitly obeyed. Wouldn’t it be nice?
-Don Stott don@coloradogold.com