Restoring the Sovereignty of the “Several States”

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

This, my friends is the 17^th amendment to the US constitution. Prior to its enactment senators were selected not by direct election but by duly elected state legislatures. There was a huge push to enact this amendment over the resistance of the elected officials, so much so that 27 states had called for a constitutional convention to deal with the matter if the house and Senate would not. As we look to make the necessary changes we can draw inspiration from the dogged insistence of the people beginning in the late 1800’s until 1913 when this amendment was ratified. The people refused to be put off and finally the dissenting voices in congress chose to be silent and abstain from voting rather than fight the will of the people. After all it is government of the people by the people and for the people is it not. We can affect change of equal proportion if we stay the course.

Today you can still get up a healthy debate over rather or not the 17^th amendment was a good thing. Some have the opinion that in removing the roll of state legislatures from the appointment of Senators, we also weakened the states themselves. Those who lived in the time prior to the 17^th were pretty unified that the interests of their individual states were not being appropriately represented by appointed senators. History shows that one of the best protections against supermajorities has been in the 17^th amendment. Reagan for instance would have likely had to deal with a 70-30 Democrat majority in the senate which would have effectively nipped the Reagan Revolution in the bud. The downside, and I refer to this often, is that states like mine may well vote for a career politician whose voting record may reflect none of the people’s beliefs if he or she brings Federal money and projects to their area. Exhibit 1: the late Robert C Byrd.

Before and after the 17^th amendment the main job of the Senate was to represent the needs of the states, just as the house represents the interests of the citizenry at large. The Senate has not done its job, states like Arizona have to defend in court their right to protect its citizens from drug gangs and violence sweeping across the border, the EPA is sapping the life out of coal producing states with its regulatory power, not to mention the destruction that Obama-care is set to bring if not repealed. Personally I don’t think repealing the 17^th amendment would help; rather it would make things worse, so I am proposing nullification.

I grant you that nullification didn’t go real well in the 1800’s.  What I am proposing though is different; I propose a constitutional amendment that simply states “if insert number of states shall vote either their state legislatures or by direct referendum of its citizenry to nullify any Federal law, that law shall be null and void.” In my idea each state would put in place the procedure necessary to take a nullification vote, though they would not wish to make the process too long. In my humble opinion this is the remedy for so much of the government’s runaway power. The states never would have ratified the constitution in the first place if they knew the level of decay their sovereignty would have undergone in the past few decades; this gives them back that sovereignty.

The only debate is how many states should be necessary to nullify.  I think a number as low as 20 should be considered. Any law that 20 states oppose would be beyond any specific regional interests, and this would make the federal governments take serious pause when considering laws that place burdensome over regulation and unfunded mandates on the states. Others will suggest a higher number like 30 which will assure that only the most egregious laws are subject to such action, but would still give the states recourse.  Probably a good compromise is 25. If half the states are hurt by it then the Federal government should be prevented from doing it.

Of all the things we can do to take back our country this may be most important: restring the sovereignty of the individual states.

Until next time keep on the firing line.

Ps we lost our internet for a while, then our computer went down but we should be back in business now.