The Stupidest Tea Party Idea: Repeal the 17th Amendment

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Amen to Mike of Illinois. Just because there was some corruption the OLD way doesn't make the NEW way the answer. Repeal the 17th, then fix what's wrong. I would trade the problems that arise from having a true Constitutional Republic for the problems that arise from having a transient democracy any day .... carry on.

Ken LaVoie of ME 5:27PM October 29, 2012

Before the 17th Amendment, states were able to protect themselves from the federal government if the Congress began legislating against the states rights. US Senators could veto any legislation by the House of Representatives which was considered a threat to the rights of the individual states. The 17th Amendment wiped out the states' rights.
Because of the 17th Amendment, the states as sovereign commonwealths have lost their representation on the federal level and Senators are subject to the same popular pressures during an election campaign as the members of the House of Representatives.
Now, federal funds appropriated for a state are generally a source of popular acclaim and Senators, like Congressmen, usually hasten to get them approved. Too often it has been of little consequence that those funds might be expended in violation of basic powers reserved to the state.

Mike of IL 12:23PM February 21, 2011

The mere fact that the left wing Progressive Socialists oppose this movement to repeal the 17th Amendment is proof enough that it should be done.
It would break the grip that the left has on the entitlement dependent voters in the population centers of America, and more clearly represent the majority of Americans who are still left of center. Need proof of this; just look at the Red/Blue map from the last two elections. All voters would still have their say because they elect the state legislatures.
Progressives are at best 30% of the population in the U.S., but manage to maintain power by slick moves like the 17th Amendment.
It is time to take back our country and return to the Constitutional Republic that our founders gave us.
The Constitution may be old, but it is as relevant today as it was when it was devised; the proof is in the outrage of the Socialists who are so threatened by the mere though of returning it to it's original state, and by their continuing march to destroy what's left of it, just as they continue to attempt to destroy religion.
These are the two things necessary to get to the Socialist Eutopia that they dream of.
The time is now for Americans to take sides. You're either for the Republic of our Founders, or you're for the Socialism of the Progressives.
Choose wisely.

Chuck of VA 9:02AM January 04, 2011

is not a credible source of information on any political ideas.

Mike Hunt of HI 8:48PM December 13, 2010

That is where people are who think that legislature-elected Senators will 'watch out' for the sovereignty or power of states. All that this repeal would do is disempower voters. State legislatures already district the House. Do this and they then run the country. It won't result in smaller national government, the state legislatures will just choose Senators who promise to bring more pork home to that state. They already do that of course, but now Senators will start promising such pork to individual state districts to get their votes, which will just put more upward pressure on that process.
But people like their right to vote. So if Tea Partyers push this, it will just speed their demise, as this fundamentally disempowers the people.

Dean of WA 1:00PM October 20, 2010

One thing that everyone seems to be missing in this preposterous debate about repealing the 17th (and allowing state legislatures to choose senators) is this: state governments are a FAR cry from what they were in our founding fathers' days. For starters, corporate influence is every bit as strong at the state level as it is at the national level. So the argument that repealing the 17th would somehow reduce corporate influence is utter hogwash.
As for Tombo's argument that a smaller government makes it easier to spot corruption: you are hideously naive. Spend some time in the third world. Or in Texas. Or in Chicago. Smaller governments are easier to control by a single individual or cartel.
Second, these "federalist" concepts: let's not forget that strong federalism cis what allowed slavery to flourish long after the majority had turned away from it in disgust, ultimately precipitating the civil war. When I hear a bunch of arch-conservative tea partiers, who I view as the American equivalent of fundamentalist muslims, demanding more "federalism", i.e. freedom for their fringe agenda, I immediately wonder who's going to pay for that federalism and in what coin. No one is remotely interested in having to shoulder the cost of a politically-induced economic "Dust Bowl" -- a migration from tea party states to responsible states. And somehow I suspect that all that federalist freedom would not include freedom from federal handouts for states with big agriculture and oil & gas.
Another poster here mentioned the Commerce Clause, and blames Roosevelt for the Supreme Court's growing activism. Well, I suggest you all study this country's earliest, very earliest, Supreme Court cases. You'll realize that overly federalized states almost tore this country apart in their race to impose trade sanctions against one another. Where's the Tea Party's nostalgia for that aspect of federalism?
I'm in no mood, after watching our financial sector get manipulated to death with full bipartisan support (decimating a responsibly diversified 401-k it took me 30 years to accumulate), to let a bunch of fundamentalist-extremists run rampant with a new political experiment which we of the rational majority will inevitably have to clean up. And with Sarah Palin as the Queen of the tea party, I would expect nothing less than economic armageddon from these so-called "new federalists".
You can have your tea party, enjoy your First Amendment rights, but don't even fantasize that the rest of us are going to let you loose on our institutions with your vague policies based on a dangerously nostalgic and oversimplified understanding of political history. The rest of us, the Grownup Party, is in no mood.

Palin's Older Sister of WA 4:24PM October 16, 2010

The 17th Amendment had two insidious results. First, it allowed “wave elections” whereby a charismatic presidential candidate could sweep in large majorities in both houses of Congress. Second, and more importantly, the body that confirms Supreme Court justices no longer answers to the States. That’s why the Supreme Court now looks the other way as federal gov’t continually exceeds its constitutional authority. By the 1930's (with Roosevelt's Supreme Court appointments), the directly-elected Senate had confirmed enough justices willing to craft novel interpretations of the commerce clause and general welfare clause

Jack of NE 9:11PM October 02, 2010

Repealing the 17th Amendment is the Tea's BEST idea. We will never see the size of this big, intrusive Federal Government drop back to Constitutional levels until the 17th is repealed. The people were told at the time of the ratification of the 17th that it was intended to stop corruption, but it backfireed and has done just the opposite. From it's inception in 1913 until 1933 the size of the Federal Government doubled, and that was with the huge cuts made by Harding and Coolidge in the 1920's. This huge growth came about because Senators, since being elected by the people, were no longer working for the states as protectors of the power of the states. Congressmen should represent the people and Senators should represent the states. Finding corruption in government is like finding a needle in a haystack; the easiest way to find it is to have a small haystack. The easiest way to find corruption in government is to have small government and the best way to have a small government is to repeal the 17th so Senators will return to doing their jobs of protecting the powers of the state. Repealing the 17th would also mean that Senators would have to answer to the state's Governors, so the Governors would be their bosses. Therefore if a Senator acts up or becomes corrupt; the Governor can recall him and that would also be good. It will never happen, but the best thing that could happen to this nation, in the name of liberty is to repeal the 17th Amendment!

Tom of OH 5:44PM August 26, 2010

Competing constituencies were imbedded in the original Constitution as hard-wired, systemic mechanisms to preserve liberty and prevent accumulation of power by any group and by the national government. Indirect election of Senators was part of the original Virginia Plan, and the rationale was elaborated in Federalist 39, 62, and 63. What indirect election did was simultaneously hard-wire federalism, ensuring states had direct input into the formation and scope of the national government, and hard-wired bicameralism, which prevented Congressional overreach and limited unnecessary and special interest laws. The 17th Amendment simultaneously wrecked both federalism and bicameralism, and the result has been the steady growth in national governmental power and spending to the detriment of the states and the people as well.
Far from a wacky idea, repealing the 17th Amendment would re-establish a second house of substantially different composition and constituency. This would restrain Congress, reduce the amount of special interest legislation, make the states active participants in the national government, and cause power to flow from Washington to the state capitols and, as a consequence, closer to the people.
This argument is about liberty. As Madison points out in Federalist 10 and Hamilton in Federalist 9, democracy is inferior to representative government. Democracy is like chocolate: in the right amount, wonderful; in excess, it makes us sick.
If you like big government, you probably like the 17th Amendment, as Mr. Farrell evidently does; if you love liberty and believe smaller government is best, you should be in favor of 17th Amendment repeal. Favoring repeal puts you firmly in the camp of Madison, Hamilton, Benjamin Rush, Edmond Randolph, John Adams, and a host of the greatest political thinkers the world has ever known.

Jeff Hays of CO 1:25AM August 01, 2010