Sarah Bailey

Check our Balance

Repealing the 17
th
Amendment

William Gladstone said, The American Constitution is the most wonderful work ever
struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.
1
Alexis DeTocqueville dedicated a
two volume work titled Democracy in America in which he addresses his findings on how
America works as a country and why it is so praiseworthy. However, Benjamin Franklin gave
this warning when asked what type of government they created, A Republic, if you can keep it.
The United States Constitution created a one of a kind government that took its
foundations from historical and present governments, brilliant philosophers, theological debates
and basic principles. Out of these principles the governing system of checks and balances was
installed in the Constitution to guarantee one branch of government could not usurp power or
become corrupted. It also put power with the states to check the federal government. However,
one of the original checks and balances was removed with the 17
th
amendment to the constitution
and the repercussions have led us right to a pitfall our founding fathers warned us about, a large
central government and states that have no power.
The goal of the founding fathers was to have more of a Federalist system with individual
states and a small central government with limited powers. The thought was to have senators
represent the states and the representatives represent the people within the federal government. If
states did not feel their senators were keeping the states best interest in mind they could call for
an immediate removal. In 1913 the 17
th
amendment changed the way senators were voted into
office making them directly elected by the people in the same fashion as the House of
Representatives.

1
(William Ewart Gladstone: Life and Public Services, ed. Thomas W. Handford [Chicago: The Dominion Co., 1899], p.
323).
The impact this change has had is notable in several ways. First, senators no longer have
to keep the states best interest in mind. If a senator votes for an unconstitutional bill nothing
major happens, at least not until their term is up and even then it is rare. Senators are in office for
6 years and since the 17
th
amendment history has proven that it is difficult to remove an
incumbent, in 2010 84% of incumbent senators were re-elected. (OpenSecrets.Org) Whereas in
1835 Senator Pelog Sprague from Main was asked to resign when he voted against his state
legislators wishes in the famous Andrew Jack vs. the Bank of the United States vote.
(DiLorenzo).
Second, the federal government has usurped power from the states. This check originally
guaranteed that the states would have representation within the federal government because the
federal government cannot be trusted. It is not enough to have checks and balances within the
three branches of the federal government because they belong to the same entity. As history has
noted, solitary central governments tend to grow themselves and seek power taking it away from
any source possible. A swing in power that is easily noted today by the federal government
overturning states decisions to deny marriage to gay couples, legalize abortion and citizens
choices for doctor assisted suicide. The tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States
clearly 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 intention of the
founding fathers was to limit the powers of the federal government and to leave the rest to the
states; however, with the ratification of the 17
th
amendment the federal government has had the
ability to usurp power from the states because states no longer have representation within the
federal government.
Now, it is important to note that while senators and representatives are directly
responsible to the people and this may be more of a democracy it is not necessarily the best
system. Speaking to this issue Mr. Williamson said, The different modes of representation in
the different branches will serve as a mutual check. (Madison) Without this mutual check things
go without question. For example, senators are aware that they now have to please their
constituents to become reelected and what makes a happy constituent? Getting what they want.
Making constituents happy generally leads to an appropriation of money, one that should have
been checked by the states.
Since the amendment in 1913 the amount of
money appropriated by the federal
government has been outrageous. While it
takes time for senators to change and
become comfortable with direct election, it
is clear that by 1919 our Nations money
appropriations have become unchecked and
unruly. It nearly quadrupled the amount of
outstanding debt from the previous high in
13 years. It went from $5,717,770,279.52 to
$27,390,970,113.12 (Treasury Direct).
Before the change it was rather consistent
but once the change was ratified the debt
only sky rocketed from there.
Figure 1 Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1900-1949
(Treasury Direct)
If the Nation has been impacted in such a way why then was the 17
th
amendment purposed and
ratified?
The state legislatures came to frequent deadlocks when selecting a senator. As a result,
they went without representation. The deadlocks occurred because of the election process. A
voice vote would be taken and if that did not yield a strong candidate they would move to a
concurrent vote. This type of vote gave minority groups power because they then knew who to
support or oppose based on bribery. There were a total of 71 deadlocks from 1885-1912
(DiLorenzo). Obviously, it was a problem. But, the solution they found was to change the entire
process by eliminating the delicately thought out check and balance system of the constitution
that our founding fathers carefully put together. Changing this balance changed the federalist
form of our government and gave power to the federal government and removed it from the
states. If we are to reverse this and give power and control back to the states the 17
th
amendment
must be repealed. Unless that happens, the federal government will continue to go unchecked,
usurp power and appropriate money without reserve.

Works Cited
DiLorenzo, Thomas J. "Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment." 2005. lewrockwell.com. 20 July 2014.
Madison, James. "Notes of Debates." n.d. 77.
OpenSecrets.Org. "Reelection Rates Over The Years." 2012. OpenSecrets.Org. Document. July 2014.
Treasury Direct. "Historical Debt Outstanding ." n.d. Treasurydirect.gov.
William Ewart Gladstone: Life and Public Services, ed. Thomas W. Handford [Chicago: The Dominion Co., 1899],
p. 323.