We are living in a time where the Federal Government is expanding its footprint with an arrogance that may never have been witnessed before on this scale. The Administration and Congress feel emboldened by their implied mandate from the people for change, and that change is being brought in a flurry of initiatives with total disregard of whose rights are infringed in the process. These infringements include both individual rights as well as state rights. Several states are currently posturing themselves for the many potential conflicts they see coming their way. They are passing resolutions that are reaffirming their 10th Amendment rights which expresses that any power not delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution are reserved to the states unless prohibited. The effectiveness of this action is left to be seen, but it will likely show to be more formality than an actual authoritative line in the sand. How nice would it be if the states had representation in the Federal Government much like individuals have through their Representatives, possessing a direct voice and not just a passive expression of rights? Well, unfortunately, they had that precise representation up until 1913 when they gave it away in the form of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. What in the world were they thinking by ratifying this Amendment and relinquishing their influence, how nice would it be right now to have stronger state powers to oppose any unwelcome Federal intrusion?

The Constitution of the United States provided for the U.S. Senate to be comprised of two Senators appointed from each state by their respective Legislatures. The 17th Amendment changed that provision from being appointed by the Legislatures to being elected by popular vote. This is a very important change because it shifted the accountability of those Senators away from the state governing bodies to the populace as a whole. It made the Senate beholden to the individual voters exactly the same as the House of Representatives, thus making the function redundant with that of the House and reducing its effectiveness. The Founders specifically provided for the states to have this direct voice in the Federal Government as part of the checks and balances integrated throughout the governmental system as set forth in the Constitution. It is just as important for the States to have direct representation much in the same way as individuals possess, but the 17th Amendment rescinded that notion.

It is understandable for the position to be taken that all of our Government should be answerable to “We the people.” In effect this is still the case without the 17th Amendment because each state Legislature is voted by popular ballot thus indirectly it still comes down to the individual citizens. What has been lost by the states and the individuals is a tool of consolidation to advance a strong, unified and cohesive message on the national level. Right now, any number of individuals can demonstrate, collect signatures, or use any other form of protest to garner attention in the national political process, and it is usually met with indifference even with thousands of participants attempting to send a message. However, if a state Legislature pushes a position on behalf of its residents, it becomes much more forceful being that they are speaking on behalf of their whole state with voting power in the Senate. Individual protesting is fine, but its message is often too diluted to get the attention needed, but states consolidate that message and push with more weight for the changes desired by their citizens. A system where Senators are accountable to everybody in the populace usually means they are accountable to nobody, reduce that down to the Legislature only and their accountability gets focused. With the system as originally implemented, the citizens would have two avenues for effecting change on the Federal level; they could work through their U.S. Representatives directly and through their respective state Legislatures in directing their U.S. Senators to vote for what is beneficial to the state.

The ratification of the 17th Amendment certainly looks like a monumental mistake for the state and its individual citizens by weakening both. There is potential legislation currently circulating around Washington D.C. that is contrary to the best interests of our citizens and future generations. It makes you wonder how much of that legislation would be rejected or reworked if the state Legislatures had a strong apparatus of control as originally provided. This would also include any legislation recently voted and passed that will prove harmful to our nation. All laws would have to go through a chamber that is beholden to the individuals as well as a chamber that is beholden to the state Legislatures on behalf of the residents within their respective states, so all legislation would have to serve the individuals and the states equally. Having the original structure modified has created an imbalance of power between the states and the Federal Government which is resulting in the arrogance toward the rights of states and its citizens. This is a big issue right now on the national front and promises to become bigger if the current trend continues. The Federal Government will attempt to expand and control more aspects of our lives and we have lost a very important mechanism for combating it by pushing back with state powers that were originally devised as a check on Federal indiscretions. States would be more effective in opposing Federal expansionism if they would band together to rescind the 17th Amendment and not just reassert their 10th Amendment rights. Getting back to the original intent of the Constitution is an action that would certainly bring balance back to the relationship between the states and the Federal Government while paying respects to our Founders’ original vision.