Repeal 17th Amendment bring back state sovereignty

Senators are supposed to serve as not only a check against the Executive, but a check against federal overreach into state powers and capabilities. The establishment of the 17th amendment removed the primary check states had against the overreaching federal government.

The original structure of our Congress established senators as a type of state interest “Ambassador” to the federal government.

We are a federation of 50 countries that agreed to a co-op of the federal government doing limited things that are a sensible use of a sort of economy at scale in the world.

National defense, diplomacy, international commerce being three of the major ones.

This began the shift from state having power over the federal to the federal having power the states which is entirely antithetical to the Constitution as established.

A major role of the senate is to mistrust any power exercised by the federal government that is capable of being managed by the states.

An indicator of how far removed from a Union towards a Nation is when the federal government gives a State funding that means that money likely never should have been removed from the state to begin with.

That is the sort of scrutiny senators are supposed to provide.

6 Likes

Proposal for the Repeal of the 17th Amendment

The 17th Amendment, which established the direct election of United States Senators by popular vote, has arguably undermined the original intent of the framers of the Constitution to balance the powers between the states and the federal government. Originally, Senators were selected by state legislatures, serving as an embodiment of state interests in the federal legislative process. This repeal proposal argues that returning to this method would enhance state sovereignty, ensuring that Senators act more as ambassadors of their states rather than as free agents subject to the whims of national politics. This change would reintroduce a vital check on federal power, as Senators would be more accountable to their state legislatures, thereby ensuring that federal legislation more closely aligns with state interests.

Moreover, the direct election of Senators has led to an increased influence of money in politics. Campaign finance has become a significant issue, where Senators spend an inordinate amount of time fundraising for their re-election rather than focusing on legislative duties. By having state legislatures choose Senators, we would mitigate the impact of special interest groups and reduce the financial burden of Senate races. This would not only purify the political process but also encourage a type of statesmanship where Senators prioritize legislative effectiveness over electoral politics, potentially reducing the gridlock that often plagues the current system.

Lastly, the repeal of the 17th Amendment could foster a more nuanced political discourse. Currently, the direct election system promotes a two-party dominated landscape where Senators must appeal to the broadest possible electorate, often leading to polarization and oversimplification of complex issues. With state legislatures in charge, there would be a greater incentive for Senators to engage in more collaborative and state-specific policy-making. This could lead to policies that are better tailored to the diverse needs of individual states, rather than one-size-fits-all solutions dictated by national party platforms. Reverting to the original method would not only restore the intended federal structure but also enhance the quality of representation and governance in the U.S. Senate.

5 Likes

Hear! Hear!

1 Like

Another solution that could partially improve it could possibly be ranked choice voting.
It can dull the partisan elements by forcing candidates to compete with other candidates for the “second choice” & “third choice” of people with different political views.

Have you thought about potential downsides to this?
I like the idea, but I haven’t thought too deeply about it. I will now.
I’m a bit concerned about the legislative bodies of the states being corrupted.

I’m not positive, but I think ranked choice has way too much potential to be hijacked.

What would be the best way to combine all the Repeal-the-17th amendment posts?

1 Like

That’s a great question. Giving power back to the states would require greater personal responsibility from voters to be more involved in their local elections. One potential downside is those currently in state legislatures find ways to cement themselves in their positions as they foresee the potential of future elections become more contested.

1 Like