Tuesday, December 08, 2009

The 17th And the 10th

Matthew Hurtt:

After much debate and discussion, the Founders agreed that the upper house of the bicameral legislature should be selected by the state legislatures. According to the History of the U.S. Senate, this provision encouraged states to ratify the Constitution. This established – by its very nature – a more deliberative body, sheltered from the whims of a fickle populace. Senators went to Washington to advocate on behalf of the States (individually, of course), not its people. The membership of the House of Representatives goes to Washington to represent the people.

Fast forward nearly a century and our states are now dramatically overburdened by federal mandates. Legislation like No Child Left Behind and the Real ID Act require states to spend countless millions of dollars complying with federal regulations with absolutely no federal support. Why are states subjected to these federal mandates? Because there is no one representing the States in Washington.

As Washington expands its role into “the powers not delegated” to it by the U.S. Constitution under the 10th Amendment, more Americans must realize that the 17th Amendment directly interferes with the representation of the States.

The Senate originally played the role that conservatives want the Supreme Court to play now. But that's not the answer. Restoring the Constitution is still the best way to protect individual rights, and that means repealing the 17th Amendment.

No comments: