# Repeal the 17th Ammendment **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 14, 2000, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repeal-the-17th-ammendment/36868 "2000-10-14T03:30:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2000, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repeal-the-17th-ammendment/36868/1 "2000-10-14T03:30:40Z")
First some background: Back in the day, Senators were chosen by the legislatures of each state. The 17th Ammendment to the Constitution provides, among other things, for Senators to be elected by popular vote, as they are now. So, here are my reasons for why i think this is bad, and should be reversed. (Not that it will be, people will never vote away their own power, but I digress.) 1. The Senate is the “higher” of the two houses, in that it deals with more important issues and has more power. The Senate is in charge of confirming judicial appointees and cabinet members, and as such, it would be advantageous if Senators were (somewhat) immune to the typical political rediculosity of publically elected officials. In other words, the Senate should not have its intellectual integrity compromised by partisanship and popular views. 2. My understanding of the Constitution (and this is not stated implicately, it’s my interpretation) is that the Senate exists to represent the interests of each state, while the house exists to represent the interests of the _people_ of each state. I believe both interests should be represented. The people should pick their Representatives, and the States should pick their Senators. 3. Supreme Court Justices must be approved by the Senate. I believe the Justices are the most important people in the government (more important than the President) because they are the absolute final authority in charge of interpreting the Constitution, which is the most important job. This is why they’re appointed, not elected, and why they are appointed for a lifetime term. It protects them from partisan stupidity, from political pressure, and other such tomfoolery. As such, electing Senators from the state legislatures would provide an extra layer of intellectual integrity (and dare I say, the Supreme Court is the only branch of the Federal Government with any intellectual integrity left) to protect the sanctity of that position. Comments? ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2000, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repeal-the-17th-ammendment/36868/2 "2000-10-14T03:53:54Z")
You think putting _state legislatures_ in charge of Senatorial appointments will make Senators “immune to the typical political rediculosity of publically elected officials”? ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2000, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repeal-the-17th-ammendment/36868/3 "2000-10-14T03:57:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > \*\*You think putting _state legislatures_ in charge of Senatorial appointments will make Senators “immune to the typical political rediculosity of publically elected officials”? \*\* Well, _somewhat_ immune. What I mean by that, is though there will inevitably be some partisanship involved, the choices will be more intelligent than “who looks good on TV.” They’ll be elected based more on their merit and performance in public office. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2000, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repeal-the-17th-ammendment/36868/4 "2000-10-14T04:32:00Z")
Your OP is actually the original intent of the Constitution. The first three words of the Constitution, “We the people”, were meant as a repudiation of the Articles of Confederation, which was a compact between the states. Realizing that they were stripping the states of many of their powers and privileges, the Founders gave the states representation in the higher house. By having the President and the Senate appoint the Supreme Court, they gave the third branch of government two layers of separation from the people and, therefore, theoretically shielded them from transient political passions. Thing is, this was drafted with the intent of their not being any political parties. In today’s world, the effect of having the state legislatures appoint Senators would simply be to let the majority in the state legislature choose the Senator, who would doubtless be some party hack with no redeeming social qualities. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2000, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repeal-the-17th-ammendment/36868/5 "2000-10-14T05:08:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pantom \* > Thing is, this was drafted with the intent of their not being any political parties. In today’s world, the effect of having the state legislatures appoint Senators would simply be to let the majority in the state legislature choose the Senator, who would doubtless be some party hack with no redeeming social qualities. I don’t think I agree with this entirely (and I don’t particularly like the parties, but that’s another matter.) It wouldn’t bother me very much if the state majority got to pick a person from their party to represent them, that would, after all, make sense. If a state is mostly republican, and therefore has a mostly republican legislature, they should pick a republican (or two) to go to the Senate. It seems to me that having two houses responsible to the same people is kind of obsolete. I think this ammendment caused the disturbing practice of eroding state’s rights to snowball. But that’s just MHO. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2000, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repeal-the-17th-ammendment/36868/6 "2000-10-14T05:18:19Z")
I think the lifetime term is the big problem I have with it. Firstly, not only would we have state legislatures selecting Senators, they would only be doing so only every ten, twenty, thirty years. I simply cannot believe that state lawmakers would act in an unbiased and nonpartisan manner–it will not happen. As a result, I think we’d end up with the “flavor of the month” for decades. Where would the Senate be today if we had not been able to vote, say, segregationists out of office? Secondly, one Strom Thurmond is quite enough, thank you. I can’t even imagine half a Senate of nonagenarians. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2000, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repeal-the-17th-ammendment/36868/7 "2000-10-14T05:20:58Z")
Oh, and Friedo, it’s _Weekend at Bern **ie** ’s_. Great site. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2000, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repeal-the-17th-ammendment/36868/8 "2000-10-14T05:37:26Z")
andros: there was no lifetime term for Senators. Just like now, it was 6 years, with one third turning over every two years. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2000, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repeal-the-17th-ammendment/36868/9 "2000-10-14T06:27:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by andros \* > Oh, and Friedo, it’s _Weekend at Bern **ie** ’s_. > Great site. Thanks, I’ll fix that, **andros**. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by pantom_ > there was no lifetime term for Senators. Just like now, it was 6 years, with one third turning over every two years. Thank you for clarifying that. I was not implying that senators be elected for life, just that they be chosen by state legislatures. I do believe, however, that SC Justices should be appointed for life. ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2000, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repeal-the-17th-ammendment/36868/10 "2000-10-14T06:34:04Z")
Oh, yes- the old “we need less Democracy as the citizens are morons arguement”. Right. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2000, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repeal-the-17th-ammendment/36868/11 "2000-10-14T06:47:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \* > \*\*Oh, yes- the old “we need less Democracy as the citizens are morons arguement”. Right. :rolleyes: \*\* Last time I checked, Dan, The United States is not a democracy, it is a republic. We elect people to take care of government tasks for us, precisely because the public is unqualified, unwilling, and far too busy to do it all themselves. There’s no reason why the choosing of senators can not be done by the legislatures instead of the people. Your reasoning, (“citizens are morons”) while somewhat true, has nothing to do with my reasoning. I want: 1. A second layer of systemic protection for SC Justices and other executive pointees. 2. The interests of the _state_ which, and this is important, are _not always the same_ as the interests of the people of the state, to be represented. As we have it now, no such representation exists. In fact, the two houses now represent _exactly the same thing_. So what’s the point of having two houses at all, besides the issue of proportionate representation, which is probably much less of an issue today than 200 years ago? ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2000, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repeal-the-17th-ammendment/36868/12 "2000-10-14T06:49:45Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally mispelled by friedo_ > executive pointees. Should of course, be “appointees.” ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2000, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repeal-the-17th-ammendment/36868/13 "2000-10-14T07:01:38Z")
I agree with **Daniel** here. > [@](#): > > [sup]Originally posted by friedo[/sup] > _In other words, the Senate should not have its intellectual integrity compromised by partisanship and popular views_ What’s wrong with popular views? This is our country and our views should be respected. States are not people and do not deserve rights. And friedo, republics ARE democracies. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2000, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repeal-the-17th-ammendment/36868/14 "2000-10-14T08:04:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by 2sense \* > > What’s wrong with popular views? > This is our country and our views should be respected. Yes, popular views should be respected. That’s why we elect people we agree with. But popular views, which necessarily affect the actions of politicians in office, should NOT have an effect on 1. Who gets appointed to the Supreme Court 2. The decisions of the Supreme Court because it is their job to determine the meaning of the Constitution _without regard_ to what is popular, but what is in the best interest of preserving the rights laid out in said document. These two ideas are not always in agreement. > [@](#): > > States are not people and do not deserve rights. This is absolutely, positively, 100% incorrect. States absolutely deserve rights, and their rights are _guaranteed_ by the Tenth Ammendment and by Article IV of the Constitution. All the states joined the union under the guarantee of a degree of autonomy, and they deserve to have that autonomy respected and represented. > [@](#): > > And friedo, republics ARE democracies. Yes, yes, this is a matter of semantics. An important notion, that is often overlooked, is that by living in a republican society, citizens willingly delegate their executive authority (all executive authority derives from the will of the people) to the people they elect to represent them. I believe the House should represent the people, and, as such, pick the members of the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2000, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repeal-the-17th-ammendment/36868/15 "2000-10-14T08:08:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by friedo \* > I believe the House should represent the people, and, as such, pick the members of the Senate. Doh! Another typo. I meant to say that the house should represent the people, and the Senate should represent the states, being chosen by the states, not the people. Make sense now? It’s 4:00 in the morning… ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2000, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repeal-the-17th-ammendment/36868/16 "2000-10-14T15:52:12Z")
friedo, sorry if I missed this, but can you clarify the difference between the rights of a people in a state as distinct from the rights of the state itself? When you refer to the rights of the state, do you refer to the sovereignty of the state? Can you give me an example of when a state’s rights conflict with the collective rights/voice of the people of said state (let’s say as defined by a plurality, which is how it is typically accounted for)? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2000, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repeal-the-17th-ammendment/36868/17 "2000-10-14T16:32:07Z")
pantom wrote: > [@](#): > > The first three words of the Constitution, “We the people”, were meant as a repudiation of the Articles of Confederation, which was a compact between the states. Hmmm. From [http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/preamble/#f2:](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/preamble/#f2:) “the Court has read the preamble as bearing witness to the fact that the Constitution emanated from the people and was not the act of sovereign and independent States, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 403 (1819) Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 471 (1793); Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 324 (1816)” Well, I’ll be durned. I always thought Article VII made it clear that this was a “Constitution between the States.” ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2000, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repeal-the-17th-ammendment/36868/18 "2000-10-14T16:37:10Z")
And I gotta ask, what was the motivation behind passing the 17th Amendment in the first place? What kind of arguments were made in its favor, such that 2/3 of both houses of Congress voted for it and 3/4 of the States ratified it? Was there widespread concern over state legislatures choosing U.S. senators for “the wrong reasons”? ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2000, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repeal-the-17th-ammendment/36868/19 "2000-10-14T17:36:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bob Cos \* > friedo, sorry if I missed this, but can you clarify the difference between the rights of a people in a state as distinct from the rights of the state itself? When you refer to the rights of the state, do you refer to the sovereignty of the state? > > Can you give me an example of when a state’s rights conflict with the collective rights/voice of the people of said state (let’s say as defined by a plurality, which is how it is typically accounted for)? Thanks. I’m referring primarily to the sovereignty of the state. I can’t think of an example where the two interests have been in _direct_ conflict, but I think both interests should be represented. I could probably come up with a hypothetical situation. I’m not so concerned with the fact that the interests may conflict, just that both deserve representation. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by tracer_ > what was the motivation behind passing the 17th Amendment in the first place? I’m not sure of the history behind it. My guess is it became a popular campaign issue (“You should have the right to vote for your senators!!”) and it got a bunch of people elected who ratified the ammendment. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2000, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repeal-the-17th-ammendment/36868/20 "2000-10-14T17:51:39Z")
Regarding the motivation behind the 17th, [usconstitution.net](http://www.usconstitution.net/) has this to say: > [@](#): > > The system eventually became fraught with problems, with consecutive state legislatures sending different Senators to Congress, forcing the Senate to work out who was the qualified candidate, or with the selection system being corrupted by bribery and corruption. In several states, the selection of Senators was left up to the people in referenda, where the legislature sent approved the people’s choice and sent him or her to the Senate. Articles written by early 20th-century muckrakers also provided grist for the popular-election mill. So it seems to me senators may have been elected in some sttes by popular vote already. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repeal-the-17th-ammendment/36868.md?page=2)