In 1913, the United States took a decisive step away from the constitutional design of its founders with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment. What was sold as a necessary reform — the direct election of U.S. Senators — was, in reality, the quiet removal of one of the most important safeguards in the federal system. It severed the Senate from the states it was meant to represent and altered the delicate balance between state and federal authority.
Yet the loss of state-appointed Senators is not the only change that has weakened the original constitutional architecture. More than a century earlier, the Twelfth Amendment transformed the office of the Vice President from the elected runner-up in the presidential race into a mere running mate, a hand-picked partner on a party ticket. In doing so, it stripped the Vice Presidency of its intended role as a check on presidential ambition and legislative overreach.
It is time to restore both.
Why the Seventeenth Amendment Should Be Repealed
Before 1913, Senators were chosen by state legislatures. This was not a quaint relic of the 18th century — it was a structural necessity in a federal republic. The House of Representatives was designed to speak for the people; the Senate was designed to speak for the states.
By tying Senate elections to the popular vote, the Seventeenth Amendment made Senators answerable to mass opinion and national party machinery rather than to the governments of their states. It reduced state legislatures to mere administrative bodies, stripped them of direct influence in Washington, and accelerated the centralization of power in the federal government.
Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would:
-
Restore State Sovereignty — Senators would once again be accountable to the legislatures of their states, ensuring federal laws reflect the interests of the states as political entities, not just aggregated popular sentiment.
-
Strengthen Federalism — The Senate would once again serve as a check on federal overreach, resisting mandates and policies that trample state authority.
-
Stabilize Governance — Legislative appointment tends to produce more seasoned, consensus-oriented Senators rather than perpetual campaigners chasing the next news cycle.
Why the Original Vice Presidency Should Return
Under the Constitution as originally written, the President was the candidate with the most electoral votes; the Vice President was the runner-up. Far from being an afterthought, the Vice President was given the singular constitutional duty of presiding over the Senate.
This arrangement guaranteed that the executive branch would contain a natural tension — the President and Vice President might be political rivals, even ideological opponents. To modern sensibilities this sounds like a recipe for conflict, but to the Founders, that was precisely the point.
Restoring the original method of selecting the Vice President would:
-
Revive an Internal Check on the Executive — A Vice President from a different faction would make unilateral executive action far more difficult.
-
Reinforce Legislative Oversight — As Senate President, the Vice President could use procedural influence to slow or block legislation contrary to their principles or to the long-term good of the nation.
-
Encourage Broader Coalitions — Presidential candidates would have to appeal to a wider segment of the electorate to avoid ending up with their strongest opponent as their second-in-command.
The Founders’ Wisdom: Friction as a Virtue
In both cases, the Founders assumed that government should be slowed by design. They understood that efficient government is often dangerous government. The Senate, tied to the states, and the Vice Presidency, tied to the President’s chief rival, were deliberate devices to prevent the consolidation of power in any one faction.
By altering these mechanisms, we have made our government faster, more unified — and far more prone to overreach. Today, when one party captures the White House and the Senate, there is almost no internal restraint. The result is policy whiplash, federal bloat, and a deepening national divide.
Two Reforms, One Goal
Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment and restoring the original Vice Presidency would not magically cure our political ills. But together, they would force Washington to reckon with its limits. State governments would regain their voice in federal affairs, and the Senate would again serve as a chamber of the states, not just another popular assembly. The executive branch would once more contain a structural rival, reducing the risk of one-party dominance and executive excess.
These are not radical ideas. They are the recovery of what worked. In our zeal to “fix” the problems of the past, we dismantled the safeguards that preserved our balance. It is time to put them back.
No comments:
Post a Comment