Home

Our Goal

Amendment

About  Us

Join

Objections to Repealing the 17^th

As there are some people who want to restore State Sovereignty and local control, there are those who resist repealing the Seventeenth Amendment. These opponents have at least five objections:

• ·     Loss of DIRECT VOTE.  The Seventeenth gave individual voters the power of casting a vote directly for their choice for U.S. Senate. The populist argument was for a more pure choice, empowering voters.
       A Constitution scholar from Stanford University, Dr. Kramer, noted that turning Senate elections back over to state legislatures is an anti-democratic movement" ( Kansas City Star: 08.22.10). But his expertise overlooks the power of local voters mandating which candidate their state legislatures must chose.
        As the direct election scenario has played out since 1913, voters have become disenfranchised from their U.S. Senator.  The original intent by the Founding Fathers was for the U.S. Senate to act as a special advisory to the Executive Branch. Unfortunately, direct vote has lead to a uni-legislature, where each department competes to spend more tax money.  Senators are able to disappear for six years into the D.C. catacombs.

• ·      Loss of Federal Powers
  and unable to fund federal government programs  from loss of taxes:
  Some opponents fear the loss of federal powers, when the Seventeenth Amendment is repealed.
       Prior to the 16th, the federal government collected revenue from tariffs and excise taxes.  Without the ability to tax the people directly--which was prohibited by the Constitution--the federal government remained small; it could never have grown to its present size without the ability to levy a direct tax against people and corporations.
       The proposal does not automatically deprive Uncle Sam of $1,503.5 billion.  It would just shrink the budget to a level the states deemed appropriate.
       Individual income tax    $915.3 billion   43.5%
       Social insurance taxes   $890.9 billion   42.3%
       Corporate income tax     $138.2 billion    6.6%
       Customs, duties, misc.   $ 74.2 billion    3.5%
       Excise taxes             $ 62.5 billion    3.0%
       Estate and gift taxes    $ 23.5 billion    1.1%
       TOTAL                  $2,104.6 billion  100.0%(= 14.4% of GDP)
        *** Information in graphical form: 
       http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-revenue-sources

• ·     Going backwards in American History.
  Some object because, in their view, returning to Madison’s and Franklin’s original intent of the “Great Compromise” is going backwards.  In other words, it isn’t progressive. 
              These are the same thinkers who ignore the Tenth Amendment (guaranteed State Powers) and have expanded the original limited 18 responsibilities of the federal government.  These are the same proponents pressing to dissolve separation of powers that were written into Constitutional text.

• ·     Confusing method of selection and campaigning:  Opponents cite early confusion from different State’s selecting its senators.  Some state legislatures appointed their national senator from within, while others used various election criteria.  During the Civil War, many states did not send a Senator to D.C. Our early American History will tell the story of disarray concerning “the Great Compromise”.
       The manner how the State Sovereignty issue should have worked is best illustrated in the Lincoln/Douglass debates of 1858.  Each toured Illinois, entering into more than a dozen debates. Stephen A. Douglas won the popular vote. Then, the Illinois legislature appointed Douglas, voted by the people, as their U.S. senator. ( follow artifacts at Museum- www.illinois.com/details/museums.
       With election laws changing after the 1960’s, States would follow current the current protocol and voting process: the people chose THEIR candidate for Senator, then the state legislature appoints the winner.

•      The CORRUPTION issue:  From the onset, corruption existed within state legislatures in the Senatorial selection process.  The many state corruption incidents were a major selling point by news reporting, salient commentary and national moral indignation.  The Seventeenth Amendment, “direct vote by the people”, sounded good on paper; its promises was awe inspiring: personal vote, rid state corruption, select honest & able senators.
       Reality bites.  More corruption, and the chances for it, exists at the federal level than during the old, original state legislature selection process. Ask yourself, “How many multimillionaire U.S. senators are there now, as compared to before 1913”.  Virtually every Elected Senator arrives in D.C. well off, but soon becomes wealthy, many obtaining multimillionaire status. Present day U.S. Senators do not have to answer to local voters, constitutional law, or State expectations. They have become isolated, aloof and power driven.
       The original appointment system was often corrupt, raping a state. Yes, in appointing Senators, state legislators would many different incentives to engage in corruption in exchange for a Senate appointment.  And because those incentives are there,  assuming people will be bad when thinking of constitutional structure, then corruption would inevitably occur: local corruption vs. national corruption.  But, our present direct election system is worse, raping the state and the nation.
       Here is the painful question to choose between state or federal corruption. "Do you prefer being scammed for more or lesser amounts of tax monies?"  At least, with state appointed Senators, voters are able to confront the actions much easier at each state capitol.

• Supreme Court Justice Scalia Jumps On The Anti-Seventeenth Amendment Bandwagon. See: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/15/scalia-seventeenth/

The bigger our federal bureaucracy  grows, the greater the corruption.
Benefits for undoing five decades of federal power are:

1. Restore the original intent of U.S. Senators: an advisory board

2. Cut federal bureaucracy in the Senate and reduce committees, spilling into the Executive Branch.

3. Restore States guaranteed powers under Amendment Ten.

4.  Give the voters a more direct and powerful voice in who their Senators shall be. ( At present, Senators disappear for six years, until next election cycle.)

5. Make Senators accountable to their State Legislators, who have the ability to recall them.

6. The people's disenchantment with their Senator would be aired locally! The distance for affirmative action is as close as the state capitol and its legislature. Senators would represent their state and the people's need within that state.

7. All politics is local!  Prior to ratifying the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, citizens saw more of their Senators. They voted for their choice, and state legislatures appointed the popular choice.. The best know example is the famous Lincoln and Douglas debates; Lincoln lost to Douglas, who was appointed to the Senate by the Illinois State legislature.

8. More Money to the States: An important component that will prove beneficial to the several states is taxes!  Each State needs money; better to keep monies at home than to send to the federal government in far away D.C. Allow the voters with in each state to elect officials who can best allocate tax revenues for their individual state
        Money is the key factor in growth and it is the key motivator for the several states. Each State needs money, and they need it yesterday. The repeal of the 17^th, as a stand-alone Constitutional Amendment, gets them no money. But a combination where the states control tax money as well as their U.S. Senator necessitates the power and the programs returning to the states.  Each States would become a capitalistic entity, competing with one another for business and people’s purchasing power.  From a completive, capitalistic perspective, State would reduce their size and scope of their governments

Call for a Constitutional Convention to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment through state legislatures.

Site Map