Talk on the 17th Amendment

• We all know about the basic checks and balances on federal power
• Three branches of government
• each exerting some measure of control on the other two
• However, at the founding of our nation, there was an importation 4th check of federal power
• This check was removed by the ratification of the 17th amendment
• Prior to the 17th amendment, senators were selected by state legislatures
• Amending the constitution is a serious undertaking
• American's have historically been very hesitant to amend the constitution
• Have never done it for light or transitory reasons
• What was the problem America was trying to solve with the 17th amendment?
• The two problems
• Vacancies in the senate 
• When state legislatures could not agree on who should be the senator, they often sent no one
• Prior to the passing of the 17th amendment, the worst period of vacancy in the senate saw more than 30% of the senate's seats vacant for extended periods
• Corruption among senators
• By 1900, the senate was seen as a very corrupt body
• We hoped that if senators answered to people through direct election, this corruption would abate.
• So in 1913, we got the 17th amendment.  What was the result?
• The truth is that we had a run-in with the law of unintended consequence
• Did it fix the vacancy problem?  
• Absolutely
• In the case of a vacancy, the Governor just appoints someone
• Did it fix the corruption problem?
• Not a chance.
• Three times as many of senator were convicted of corruption in 20th than the 19th
• The 17th amendment introduced a new kind of corruption
• Best demonstrated when the FBI caught Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich attempting to sell the senate seat vacated when Barack Obama was elected president.
• This kind of corruption was simply not possible prior to the ratification of the 17th
• But there was an even bigger unintended consequence
• Our fed. gov't was conceived  in 1787 when delegates of the 13 original states drafted constitution.  
• Two years later it was ratified after an intense public debate
• The primary point of contention was that that the new government took too much power from the states.
• The public discussion on states rights versus federal power continues to this day
• Most recently here in Utah, the federal government has appropriated more than a million acres of state lands without our consent and over the objections of our elected leadership
• When states selected senators, the states had a say in federal matters
• In fact, no laws could be passed without the approval of most of the state's representatives in the senate.
• When senators answered to the states, they protected state sovereignty and helped keep the federal government small.
• Senators who acted to grow the fed gov't would not long remain senators
• When senators began answering to the people, this dynamic changed dramatically
• Now, as Senators compete to bring their constituents larger and larger pieces of federal pie, the federal pie grows.
• And the federal government takes a more direct role in Americans' lives.
• To grasp the extent to which the states have been excluded from federal matters,  one need look no further than the Affordable Care Act.  
• Many states have serious concerns over the implementation of this law
• Because states have no representation in the federal government, they are seeking redress through the courts. 
• Today, most states have sued the federal government over the ACA because they have no voice.

• For more than a century, state oversight  helped keep the federal government small
• In 1913 the federal gov't spent just 3% of Gross Domestic Product
• For every $100 earned in America, the federal government spent just $3
• Since state oversight of  the federal government was removed, it has grown to 12 times that size
• spending more than 36% of the GDP
• Our founders sought to create a limited central government 
• Bound down by the chains of the constitution
• With ratification of the 17th amendment, one of those very important chains has been cut