Opinion editor
opinion@dailylobo.com
Last Friday marked the 100th anniversary of the official enactment of the 17th Amendment, a widely accepted but nonetheless extremely controversial measure that contributed greatly to the erosion of American federalism and aided the supremacy of democracy over the rule of law in this country. Direct election of senators, hailed by the Progressive Movement as a way of returning government to the people and cutting down on corporate-fueled corruption in Senate backroom deals, was in reality one of the worst blows to federalism in the history of this country.
Essentially, one of the best ways to return balance to the American system is to repeal the 17th Amendment and to return the election of the Senate to state legislatures. By having the people elect directly both their senators and representatives, the reach of the federal government over state governments — and, by extension, over the people — has been expanded in a disturbing way.
The Constitution was deliberately set up to create a Congress with one house for direct representation of the people’s interests, and with one house for direct representation of state governments’ interests. The president would then consider both of their voices when governing. Under this original system, the election of senators by state legislatures served as a check on federal authority by creating a direct line from the states to the federal government in order to represent the states’ interests.
Now, with the people directly electing both houses, state governments have effectively lost all of their say in the federal government, allowing the federal government to assume that much more power over state governments. Repealing the 17th Amendment would reaffirm the importance of the role of state government in representing the people’s interests by reaffirming the importance of local government in representing the people’s interests.
If state legislatures controlled who was elected to the federal Senate as they originally did, then people would be much more invested in electing town, city and county officials. These local politicians, living in the same communities as voters and knowing what issues truly matter to their constituents, would have a truly good chance at being elected to the Senate. Also, since voters would have elected such politicians from the ground up, from average citizen to state senator or representative, those politicians would be much more accountable to their voters and would truly represent the most important interests of state governments and their people in Washington, D.C.
To those who say that the original senatorial election system was undemocratic and that the 17th Amendment put power back in the hands of the citizens like it should be in a democracy, I counter with the point that the United States was designed as a constitutional republic and that system of checks and balances needs to be respected.
Once again, the original layout of the Senate was designed to create a block against the expansion of federal authority over the people through direct representation of state government interests, and to create a way for the states and the people to resist the overreach of federal authority should it occur.
However, the 17th Amendment, paired with numerous other factors including uninformed voters and local government apathy, helped to ensure that federal authority reigns nearly supreme today.
One of the most compelling reasons to repeal the 17th Amendment, though, is predicated upon a correct understanding of the American political system. A “republican form of government” is not necessarily democratic, and is often explicitly anti-democratic in its pursuit of and protection of liberty. Democracy can bring freedom to the exclusion of liberty, while the rule of law can bring liberty to the exclusion of democracy.
To clarify, democracy brings the freedom to decide and to choose and to vote. But the majority, when exercising their freedom to decide and choose and vote, can trample on liberty, especially individual liberty or the liberty of smaller groups.
The 17th Amendment is an example of the people gaining freedom but losing liberty. Now, voters have the freedom to choose all of their representatives, but they have given up their individual and group liberty by allowing the federal government such pervasive and oppressive control over themselves and over their state governments.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Essentially, the repeal of the 17th Amendment is one of the surest ways to restore liberty and cut down on the federal government’s expansion of power. Returning the election of senators to state legislatures restores a major part of the original checks and balances system provided for in the Constitution which makes American federalism work. And by restoring the federal system and moving one step closer to the restoration of the American republic, the people assure themselves the liberty intended for them by the Founders, free from federal government overreach.
