Repeal the 17th Amendment and Increase the Size of the House of Representatives
In a process typical of our times, the ruling elite propose "democratic" solutions that are nothing of the kind.
Republican Senator John Cornyn and his co-conspirators on the recent “bipartisan” gun control legislation are prime examples of why the 17th Amendment should be repealed – immediately.
It is the only way to stop the Senate from playing national politics and return senators to control by the state from which they come. Cornyn's collapse is just evidence of how politicians "grow" in office and eventually join the Deep State uniparty.
The original wording of Article 1, Section 3, paragraphs 1 and 2 in the US Constitution reads:
“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.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.”
The italicized words were superseded by Sections 1 and 2 of the 17th Amendment:
“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.”
One of the most common critiques of the Framers is that the government that they created was, in many ways, undemocratic. There is little doubt of this, and it is so by design because our system of governance was designed as a representative republic, not a total democracy. The Framers recognized the tendency of total democracies to become mob rule, a tyranny of the majority.
Perhaps the most “undemocratic” of the provisions of the constitution were the Electoral College, the appointment of judges and, until April 8, 1913, when the 17th Amendment was ratified, the selection of Senators by state legislatures, rather than the direct vote of the citizens of the several states.
Of course, anything to do with politics is fraught with the opportunity for corruption, and this senatorial selection process was no exception. This process was rotten with bribery and corruption and consecutive state legislatures sent different Senators to Congress, forcing the Senate to work out who was the qualified candidate. To try to vest the choice in the body of the people, several of the states created a referenda process by which the people recommended candidates to the state legislatures by popular vote, leaving the legislatures to approve the successful candidates and send them on to the Senate
The 17th Amendment allegedly did away with all the ambiguity with a simple premise – it changed the way Senators were selected by shifting the selections away from the state legislators and remanding that process to direct election by the citizens of the states.
But far from eliminating corruption, this change just introduced a different set of problems. First, it made Senators relatively more loyal to their parties than their States and turned the Senate into the “Greater House of Representatives”. By nationalizing the Senate, rather than representing the people of the state, Senators became little more than national legislators, divorced from the will of the people of their states. In a curious contradiction, the direct election of Senators by the people of the states largely took the power out of the hands of the people of those states.
The senatorial candidates now had to cater to millions of people within their state rather than just be selected by the state legislatures. As money chases power and power chases money, outside money flows into state senatorial elections with the intent of influencing national policy. It has been argued that the 17th is not a panacea, but it brought government closer to the people.
I’m not at all sure that is true. It simply shifted the problems and corruption to a different level, poured even more money into senatorial elections and further distanced the Senators from the oversight of the people they allegedly represent.
The Senate has been under attack by the leftists as being unrepresentative because each state, regardless of population, sends two senators to DC. They want to do away with the Senate or apportion senators by population. They also want to “pack” the Supreme Court. In a process typical of our times, these “solutions” are exactly the wrong ones.
Neither the Senate nor the Supreme Court should be “enlarged” – if anything is to be “enlarged”, it should be the House of Representatives.
The House was designed to always grow with population. From 1790 to 1910 Congress regularly increased the number of Representatives to reflect the growth in our nation’s population. The last increase pegged the number of Representatives to 435 after the 1910 Census when the total population reached 91 million. 112 years later, America still has only 435 federal Representatives even though the total population has more than tripled to around 330 million.
Using the ratio of 1910, the House should have 1600 members today.
Replacing 435 imperial-sized congressional districts with several thousand smaller, community-sized ones would have the effect of restoring political power to the people at the local level and ending incumbent domination of reelections, diminishing lobbyists’ influence, overcoming political-party control of government, maximizing individual liberty, and reducing the size of government.
Returning the selection of the Senators to the state legislatures by repealing the 17th Amendment, along with allowing the growth of House so that representatives are responsible for fewer than three quarters of a million people each, would restore balance in the federal government.
I’m not sure I completely follow how the 17th “ divorced from the will of the people of their states” if they are still being elected by the people versus the peoples’ representatives electing the senators from popular referenda?