Restoring State Power - Repeal the 17th Amendment

Imagine a system where states, not just individuals, have a direct say in national governance. That was the original intent of the United States Constitution. Article I, Section 3, mandated that each state's legislature select its senators and not the citizens of that state through the ballot box. This mechanism ensured that senators would act as advocates for their state’s needs to the federal government and were held accountable by their state legislators.

However, the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, altered this landscape, making the election of senators a direct vote by the people. This shift, although seemingly democratic, significantly weakened state power.

In this post, I will articulate why repealing the 17th Amendment is essential for restoring true state sovereignty and reestablishing the balance of power envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

Convention of States (COS) under Article V

The Convention of States Project is calling for the convening of a Convention of States under Article V of the United States Constitution, to propose amendments that will impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and impose term limits on its officials and members of Congress.

I would argue that the inclusion of repealing the 17th Amendment and restoring state power falls under the Convention of States Project’s advocated amendment to limit the federal government's power and jurisdiction.

Historical Context: The Founding Fathers' Vision

The framers of the Constitution aimed to protect the interests of both individuals and states. Before the 17th Amendment, senators were chosen by state legislatures, ensuring a strong connection between the states and the federal government. For example, this arrangement meant that senators had a direct accountability to state legislatures, leading to a focus on state issues and rights.

As the nation evolved, the push for more direct democracy gained traction, culminating in the 17th Amendment. Advocates argued this change made the government more responsive to citizens. However, this shift undermined the checks and balances put in place to protect state interests. Instead of states being active players, they became reactive to federal agendas.

The Impact of the 17th Amendment

The move to direct election of senators resulted in states losing a fundamental tool for exerting their sovereignty. Senators, instead of serving as state representatives, became national figures focused on broad electoral bases.

Senators soon realized that to win votes, they needed to bring home federal dollars. For instance, state budgets increasingly relied on federal funding, with over 30% of some states’ budgets sourced from the federal government. This reliance fostered a culture where states began to prioritize federal program funding over their unique needs.

The Results: States as Servants of the Federal Government

The repercussions of the 17th Amendment have been significant. Accepting federal funds has redefined the role of states, making them viewed as subsidiaries of the federal system. Politicians see states not as equals but as regional branches competing for funding.

This dependence distorts state priorities. Legislators often redirect resources to align with federal initiatives, which may not reflect their constituents' wishes. State legislators believed that prioritizing federal initiatives hindered their ability to address local issues effectively.

Millions in taxpayer dollars designated for state projects often serve federal agendas instead. This undermines genuine representation, stifling innovation and responsiveness at the state level.

The Call for Repeal: Returning Power to the States

To regain state sovereignty, we must return to the Constitution’s original structure. Repealing the 17th Amendment would restore state legislatures' authority in appointing senators, allowing a stronger focus on state interests in Washington.

This change would not only empower states but also cultivate a more balanced system. Senators would be accountable to state legislatures, which could lead to more collaboration rather than competition. This approach could foster a healthier federal system where states work together to address national concerns, rather than scrambling for a larger share of federal funds.

Practical Steps Forward

The journey to repeal the 17th Amendment is challenging but achievable. It will require engaging with our state legislatures to pass a resolution calling for the convening of a Convention of States. Furthermore, raising awareness among citizens is crucial for gaining their support to petition their state legislators to pass such a resolution. The Convention of States Action grassroots movement can educate the public about the adverse effects of the current system, thereby creating support from the citizenry.

The Convention of States Action movement, focused on constitutional governance, can elevate this conversation across political platforms, highlighting the benefits of restoring state power. Civic engagement initiatives can ensure that constituents grasp the intricate implications of the 17th Amendment.

A Call to Action

The adoption of the 17th Amendment marked a pivotal shift in the relationship between states and the federal government. It blurred sovereignty lines, making states dependent on federal resources instead of partners. Repealing this amendment is not merely a legal reform; it is a necessary step toward restoring the power balance intended by our Founders.

The need for reclaiming sovereignty is urgent. An empowered state system is crucial for preserving the constitutional framework that supports American democracy. Advocating for the 17th Amendment's repeal honors the Constitution's intent and paves the way for more responsive governance—one that truly champions the principles of liberty and independence.

Visit americaninsanity.org for more information on how to be "The Informed Citizen."