Does a bicameral Legislative branch make sense anymore, as the 17th Amendment erased the differences?

Question

The concept of a bicameral legislature was based on representation of the two different political units who ceded power to create the federal government - the states and the people. The concept was they would both act to represent their respective sources - the House to the people and the Senate to the states.

But the 17th Amendment changed Senators from being selected by the state governments to being elected by general vote. In essence, this eliminated the balancing factors in the Legislature, removed the concerns of the states from affecting the FedGov, and has led to even greater Federal usurpation of states' powers.

Has the populist sentiment that voted in the 17th Amendment caused significant and irreparable damage to the US? Does the Senate do anything for us that the House does not already do, or could not do just as well?

Should the 17th Amendment be repealed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The mom: you made a small mention of Education as probably a federal level necessity. This makes an excellent point to illustrate what I mean. Essentially, I do agree with that assessment - it makes more sense to have federal standards for education requirements, teacher certification, standardized tests, etc.

But... because the Constitution is very specific, it means that the current spending and efforts by the Fedgov is not constitutionally allowed, as that power still resides with the states or people per 10th Amendment. And I disagree with the broad powers wielded using the 14th Amendment.

This means that such a matter really needs to come up for debate within the states - this is what the amendment process is for.

And it is in keeping with the specified and defined nature of Federal powers.

And Mark D - thank you for bringing up the 14th amendment which has been used by the federal gov't to bypass the explicit and defined powers concept of the Constitution.

Answer 1

I believe at the time the original constitution was written, the framers of the constitution actually had very little faith that the general populace was capable of choosing people they considered "worthy" of government positions. The hope was that the governors and senators of any given state would be of the sort that would provide a balance to the potentially wild selection of representatives who were elected. In essence, the Senate was a more democratic form of the English House of Lords, whereas the House of Representatives was more like the House of Commons. Though we would like to view our founding fathers as being more egalitarian in their view of their fellow Americans, they were not. The change effected by passage of the 17th Amendment merely represents a return to the original intentions of the consitution- where all government officials in the House and Senate are elected directly by the persons they are to represent. By 1913, when the amendment was passed, the majority of Americans were literate and communication was advanced suffieciently to allow citizens of a state to make informed decisions regarding their senators and representatives.

Whether the federal government has or has not usurped states powers remains a matter for the judicial system to determine. I personally do not believe that states' rights have been usurped in any matters which dealt solely with any one state. In fact, there are several matters left in the control of local and state governments which probably ought to be under federal control- education being the least of them.

In so far as the Senate doing anything the House does not do- the tally of two senators per state still functions to level the field between large and small population states. Were it not for the leveling, states with large populations, such as California and New York, could essentially dictate the laws of the land- regardless of how citizens in smaller states were affected. While they may have voting numbers in the House, all states are the same in the Senate- and this provides balance, if nothing else.

Your question, however intriguing and well written- still fails to address your underlying complaint- that you believe the federal government has usurped states' rights. That was the same arguement which started the Civil War, is it not? But the constitution is very clear on the matter. Any rights not specifically delineated to the federal government are still retained by the states themselves. And anytime they feel they have been usurped, they have recourse to the Supreme Court for a final decision. That the states themselves have not availed themselves of this right is their decision, and that of the citizens of the state. If you disagree, you are certainly within your rights to take the matter up with your own senators and representatives.

Answer 2

Ever heard the term, don't throw out the baby with the bath water?

It's all about a government for the people, of the people and by the people. If special interests are a problem, it's time to do something about that.

In a round about way, the Senators are chosen by the State- just chosen by the people of those states, rather than the state legislature that was chosen by the people of that state.

Answer 3

Personally, I believe that the worst usurpation of state sovereignty has not occurred in Congress (and not because of taking away from state legislatures their prerogative to select the U.S. Senators) but has occurred in the Supreme Court -- especially when it purports to enforce the 14th amendment. I have often talked in my answers here on Y!A about my belief that the 14th needs to be repealed and replaced.

Answer 4

you might be on to something here. states are the ones being screwed. sure the federal government gave tax cuts to the people, but that cash had to come from somewhere. it came from the states. more states run defecits now than ever. my local taxes have increased more in the last 4 years than any time i can remember. the states don't get it back from the fed, they need to get it from somwhere, that's us!
the federal govt is out of control.