The 17th Amendment: An Analysis and Review - Essay Example

The 17th Amendment: An Analysis, Discussion, and Review When the United States Constitution was being drafted and key aspects of it were up for consideration from the Constitutional Convention, it was determined that each state, regardless of size and/or overall population, was entitled to two senators. Further, the original Constitution stipulated that the senators would be selected by the State representatives themselves as a means of providing equal footing between a representative republic and a total and complete democracy. At that time, there was but one dissenting vote, James Wilson, who argued for the senators to be elected by a popular vote. In the broader context, the original interpretation of the means whereby senators would be selected was something of a compromise which was sought between both Federalists and Antifederalists. Ultimately, the Antifederalists were desperately fearful that the monolithic central government would have the ability to continue to expand its power and create a massively powerful central government that would subjugate the individual states to the will of the central government. Accordingly, as a means of continuing to provide the states with a powerful voice with regards to their representation, it was determined and compromised that the representatives would be popularly elected by the state’s voters; whereas the senators would be selected as a means of countering the “populism” that the means whereby the House of Representatives functioned was demonstrated. Yet, vesting such a high degree of authority within the individual state legislatures posed an inherent risk in addition to the benefits that have already been enumerated upon above. With regards to these risks, campaigners to have the amendment ratified noted that a high potential for deadlock as well as corruption existed within the system. Due to the fact that state legislatures could pursue policies that were note specifically representative of the individuals within their state as well as potentially buy and sell senate nominations, the movement gained traction as early as the late 1820s. Lastly, the lack of representation that could occur should a senator vacate his/her seat or die while in office was a further impetus towards amending the Constitution in this manner. Nearly a hundred years passed before the United States Congress passed the bill and sent the proposed amendments to the state to be ratified. With regards to seeking to understand James Madison’s notes on the Constitution Convention, it cannot and should not be understated the role that Madison’s understanding and integration with the belief of federalism plays into this. In “Federalist No. 46”, James Madison states the following concerning the unique relationship that the states should have to the national government: “They (the states) are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers" (Cohen 27) Ultimately, this level of belief and trust in the fact that federalism could provide the most benefit with regards to the new system which was being integrated formed the backbone of the way in which Madison disagreed and ultimately fought against the indirect appointment of senators within the Constitution. As a function of his strong belief that the federalist system could preserve the interests of the democracy to a stronger degree than any other proposal, Madison doggedly fought against those that wished to allow appointment to take place; preferring the system of direct and popular elections to decide senate composition instead. From such an understanding, the reader can and should integrate with the understanding that had Madison been alive at the time that the 17th Amendment had been ratified by the states, he would have likely been highly pleased with the result. Though it took nearly 135 years after the Constitution was originally ratified, the federalist cause had eventually won out after many years of political back and forth. Firstly, with regards to the negative impacts of the 17th Amendment, there are those that state that the 17th Amendment bypassed a clear and distinct separation of powers that had been put in place by the founding fathers as a means of both providing the representative power of the people as well as the representative power of the interests of the individual states. In such a way, the ultimate belief among those that stand/stood in opposition to the 17th Amendment was based upon the premise that it measurably reduced the sovereignty of the state; placing the federal government in a stronger position of power (Holcombe & Lacombe 143). Therefore, by circumventing this original exhibition of a check and balance of power, those that were and still are against the effects that the 17th Amendment provided point to the fact that it practically eviscerated the role that the individual state legislature has with regards to representing its own interests within the Senate of the United States. Similarly, those that pushed back against the implementation of the 17th Amendment pointed to the fact that it fundamentally and irrevocably changed the dynamic of representation within the Senate due to the fact that rural individuals had been tabulated using a different metric as long as the state legislature had been in charge of selecting senate appointments. Conversely, with regards to the benefits, it is the belief of this author that these far outweigh whatever perceived risks have previously been elaborated upon. Firstly, by the very nature of the system of governance that was established, it makes logical sense that the representatives and senators of the system would be directly selected by the ultimate stakeholders within the system; i.e. the voters. Secondly, in addition to providing a further degree of elected representative democracy, it also all but negated the means whereby corruption within the state could be exhibited upon the national level with regards to backdoor deals being struck within the state legislature in terms of sending an individual to represent key interests that would of course be non-representative of the broader population within the state. Although it is oftentimes forgotten, the wording of the 17th Amendment also provides for the selection of a senator by the sitting governor in case the seat is vacated (Wolverton 27). This is an added benefit over the old system due to the fact that it is no longer necessary to wait until the election cycle rolls around in order to fill such a vacancy. As a function of this level of discussion which has been engaged within this brief analysis, the reader can and should integrate with the understanding that since the very formation of the Constitution, key aspects of its provisions were hotly contested among the responsible parties that helped to formulate it. As a function of time and the way in which a representative democracy works, it took years for these to be worked out and even longer for fixes to some of the drawbacks of the Constitution to become state ratified amendments. The age old battle between federalists and anti federalists is something that has helped to prolong this argument throughout nearly 140 years of United States history. Ultimately, the federalists were able to win on this point as the United States has moved progressively towards a stronger central government at the expense of certain degrees of state sovereignty along the way. Regardless of what some detractors might postulate, it remains the position of this student that although both approaches represent some drawbacks, the situation as it existed up until 1913 was ultimately untenable. Due to the fact that clear cases of corruption and misrepresentation had been proven to have taken place, it was only a logical progression that as a means of providing a higher level of democracy within the United States. References Cohen, Mark A. "Direct Election Of Senators?." Insights On Law & Society 13.1 (2012): 26-29. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 Apr. 2013. Holcombe, Randall G., and Donald J. Lacombe. "Interests Versus Ideology In The Ratification Of The 16Th And 17Th Amendments." Economics & Politics 10.2 (1998): 143. Business Source Premier. Web. 19 Apr. 2013. Wolverton, Joe. "17Th Amendment Mudslinging." New American (08856540) 26.23 (2010): 24-27. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 Apr. 2013. Read More