The Quest to Repeal the 17th Amendment, Because of Reasons

By Udo J. Keppler, 1872-1956 [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Apparently the 17th Amendment saved America from a giant octopus named Standard Oil, or something.

A movement is afoot among certain people on the right end of the political spectrum to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This movement seems unlikely to rile up the masses, given that the changes brought by the Seventeenth Amendment are pretty much presumed to be the status quo at this stage of America. Understanding what the 17th Amendment does, and why it was enacted in the first place, is at least as important as understanding why some people want to repeal it. I have some idea as to why it was enacted, ratified, etc., but I’m still working on understanding the reasons for seeking repeal.

What is the Seventeenth Amendment?

The Constitution, in Article III, Section 3, Clauses 1 and 2, originally provided for election of U.S. Senators by state legislatures.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

The Seventeenth Amendment superseded the parts in bold. It pretty much took those provisions verbatim, except that it replaced references to state legislatures with references to “the people.”

Drawing from the resources available to me on a laptop in a coffeehouse (Justia and Wikipedia), I can say that much of the impetus for the 17th Amendment was “popular dissatisfaction with the operation of the originally established method of electing Senators.” As more and more people got the right to vote, people began to think that they should be able to elect senators directly. The idea had apparently come up multiple times since the 1820’s, but didn’t make it into the Constitution until 1913.

What’s the problem with directly electing Senators? Continue reading


“Be proud to be a decent American, rather than be just a wanker whipping up fear.”

If you’re going to get smacked down, it really should be by someone with an Irish brogue. On May 28, 2010, American right-wing radio host Michael Graham was in Galway, Ireland, and had a debate with then-Labor Party Deputy Michael D. Higgins. If I may be permitted to stereotype a people with whom I have fairly recent common ancestors, Michael Graham picked a fight with an Irishman. Bad idea.

This is what happened:

Graham wasn’t about to go gently into that good night. He took to his own blog a few days later, and said things like this:

Specifically, Deputy Higgins accused me of being “a wanker who’s just whipping up fear.”  Fear of the massive debt the US has added since Obama took office, fear of our inability to pay for the monstrous ObamaCare system that’s already failed the “won’t add a single nickel to the deficit” test, fear of whackjob Islamists who use murder to pursue their aims, etc. etc.


Personally, I found Deputy Higgins’ weak logic and unwillingness to acknowledge facts far more bothersome than the name calling. But once again, I’m a conservative talk host in America, so I’m used to being insulted by government officials.

I’ll leave it to the Irish to decide if the Deputy’s comments were out of line.  Regardless, I am grateful for those who’ve risen to my defense.

And a proud, American “wanker.”

Reading that June 1, 2010 blog entry today, I am heartened by the number of people recommending that Graham just admit he got schooled and move on with his life.

I do sort of wonder what else happened in the debate. The YouTube video only has Higgins’ florid tirade, with the occasional “yeah, but” coming from Graham. Graham had an opportunity to offer a counterpoint, and you can see what he came up with.

In case you are wondering what Michael D. Higgins is up to now, he is the President of Ireland. I guess most Irish did not think his comments were “out of line.” He received more than one million votes in the 2011 election, in a country of 4.6 million people.

In case you are wondering what Michael Graham is up to now, I guess he is still on the radio, but I’m not going anywhere else on his website to check. I can say that this encounter with Michael D. Higgins is the last event mentioned on Graham’s Wikipedia page.