Terry Kinder
One of the biggest mistakes ever made through our Constitutional Amendment process, perhaps with the exception of the 16th Amendment – income taxes – was the decision to ratify the 17th Amendment and directly elect Senators. Previously, Senators were chosen by the state legislatures. Members of the House of Representatives were elected directly by the people to represent their interests. Senators were chosen by the state legislatures to represent the interests of the states. This was part of the Great Compromise, or Connecticut Compromise, which helped settle the dispute between large and small states over how Representatives and Senators would be apportioned.
Ultimately, it was decided that each state would have two Senators, while Representatives would be apportioned based on state population. This helped reassure the smaller states that their rights would not be trampled by the larger states. Senators, chosen by the state legislatures, provided a counterbalance to the power of the Federal Government. While the House of Representatives would more directly represent the will of the people and have a greater proportion of Representatives from larger states, Senators were expected to represent the interests of the states, and state legislatures, that chose them. The House might have the power of the purse (spending), but the Senate would be expected to stand against the Federal Government grabbing too much power, money, or influence from the states.
For years the Federal Government has been drawing ever more power and money to itself. It has used any number of instruments, including the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, and grants-in-aid, to exert control and influence over the states. The Federal Government also creates any number of unfunded mandates which it enacts and then expects the states to pay for. Now, imagine if Senators were still chosen by the state legislatures. Do you think they would have the nerve to allow the Federal Government to trample on the rights of the states? Would they approve unfunded mandates? Would they allow government to regulate every kind of commerce even if it only takes place within the borders of a state? The short answer is no – not if they wanted to keep their jobs.
Certainly the repeal of the 17th Amendment would not be a panacea. Rolling back the influence of the Federal Government and restoring the proper balance with the states will require more than a mere Constitutional Amendment. Citizen vigilance is always required to keep all levels of government in check. However, repealing the 17th Amendment would be a good start. Now is the time to follow the Amendment Process and restore the proper balance between state and Federal power.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=85910a23-d33b-4c82-b021-d89f9de5befd)
