I wrote earlier this year to remind readers that 2013 marks the centennial of the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a change that permitted the federal government to lay direct taxes on the income of people.
We need to acknowledge another constitutional change celebrating its 100th birthday this year – the Seventeenth Amendment.
Like the Sixteenth Amendment prohibiting the United States government from placing direct taxes upon the citizens of the states, the Seventeenth Amendment was another attack on the balance between the state and federal governments.
As originally written, the provision for Senators in Article I, Section 3 said: “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.”
Please notice the words: “chosen by the legislature thereof … .” The two Senators were not elected by popular vote of the citizens of a state. Instead, state legislatures appointed their Senators. Since the state legislatures appointed Senators, the Senators were more eager to satisfy the desires of the legislature rather than the will of the people of the state.
When the Senate first convened, the Senators divided themselves into three classes. Even though a Senator was elected to a six-year term, in that body’s first meeting, one-third of the Senators agreed to serve only two years, while another third agreed to serve only four years. The final third was the only class of that first group of Senators who served a full term.
This rotation established a body of our national legislature that never faced reelection at the same time. All U.S. House members are elected every two years, so the people of the different states could replace every member of the U.S. House in one election cycle. The founders designed the U.S. House to be responsive to the will of each state’s electorate.
The Senate’s purpose was different. Named after a legendary deliberative body, the Roman Senate, the U.S. Senate was purposely designed, according to James Madison, “to consist with proceeding with more coolness, with more system and with more wisdom than the popular branch.”
But another issue drove the push for a chamber of the legislature where every state was equally represented. Four large states that opposed the call for “equality” in national representation – Virginia, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Georgia – had twice the population of five states that favored “equality” among the states – North Carolina, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey and Delaware. The later five had only a half the population of those larger states.
Of course, the larger states favored representation by population since they had the largest populations. The smaller states favored each state being represented equally. When the delegates agreed to the Connecticut Compromise, creating a lower house with representatives apportioned by population and an upper house, where every state had equal representation, the compromise resolved this point of contention.
During 1913, the method of choosing Senators changed through the vehicle of the Seventeenth Amendment.
The pertinent part of the Seventeenth Amendment that brought the end of state legislatures appointing Senators reads: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof… .”
Once this change went into full effect, essentially the United States no longer had a House and a Senate, but a House with two-year terms and a House with longer and revolving terms.
Those who favored the Progressive Movement’s march toward greater democracy rejoiced. Those who favored the older republican form of government guaranteed by the original Constitution mourned.
I cannot help but wonder what today’s Senate would look – and behave – like had this change 100 years ago never occurred.
Mike Parker is a columnist for The Free Press. You can reach him at mparker16@suddenlink.net or in care of this newspaper.