The Switcheroo of the Senate

                             The Constitutionist

Free Newsletter
Items, Analysis, Opinions and News Gathered from Everywhere
By Steven Maikoski, Author: “The Real Constitution and its Real Enemies”
and soon: The Constitutionist Speaks
constitutionist@protonmail.com 

5-12-26 Newsletter

Every serious conservative should understand the change brought to our government by the
17th Amendment, which was sent to the states for ratification over a hundred years ago, on
May 13, 1912.  

Our original Constitution created a Senate whose members were “appointed by the State Legislatures thereof.”  Each state legislature went through a process to ensure that the senators they selected represented the best minds in their government.  They were akin to ambassadors of the state they represented and were to keep the federal government within its bounds, stopping it from the growth and corruption that affected every government in history.

The 17th Amendment changed the way Senators were selected, making them elected by popular vote. 

At first, it may seem like a simple, innocent move, but it brought a massive change to the character of our republican form of government, because the states no longer had an official check on the growth and responsible behavior of the federal government.  The Amendment changed the Senate to a chamber of popular pressure, akin to a second House of Representatives. 

What brought about the change?

In the late 1800’s, some politicians and their faithful newsmen complained about the character of the Senate, how the senators were acting like aristocrats and represented only the rich.  Thus began a campaign, led by politicians like William Jennings Bryan, who said “If the people of the United States have enough intelligence to choose their
 representatives in the state legislature, they have enough intelligence 
to choose the men who shall represent them in the United States Senate.”

Joining in the movement was Senator David Turpie, who wrote “However valid, the reasons might have been for the framers’ original mode of 
electing senators, the people at the end of the 19th century were a new 
people living and acting under an old system.”

That type of argument, we-need-something-new, is known as an Argumentum Ad Novitatum. It sounds logical, but it ignores the fact that the States should have some influence on the operations of the federal government. But the pitch sold many people on the idea, paving the way for the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913.  With that accomplished, the Senate became another House of Representatives, but with different rules and six-year terms.

The state-appointed senators were the guardians of the Tenth Amendment; they restricted the growth of the federal government.  With their absence, the power of the masses responded to politicians who promised gifts from the treasury—and worse—used their popular powers to remake the judiciary into a tool of non-constitutional politics. Thus, the growth of the federal government skyrocketed, along with its debt.

Even if it were to become an aristocracy, the old Senators still represented their States.  

The original Senate was a foundation of our republican form of government.  Another foundation, the Electoral College, is also under pressure to change.  Do not let that happen. 

Steven Maikoski