WHY THE 17th AMENDMENT MUST BE REPEALED

---

When the states lost their seat at the federal table, the people lost their shield against central power. It’s time to give that seat back.

The Founders built a republic balanced on the tension between the people and the states. But in 1913, we cut one of the most important cords holding that balance together—and we’ve been drifting toward central control ever since. The 17th Amendment did not empower citizens; it weakened the very governments closest to them.

Senators today are insulated from direct accountability. This is, in many ways, a good thing for the House of Representatives, whose members are designed to represent the passions and interests of the people in their districts. But it is a terrible idea for the Senate, whose purpose was never to echo popular will, but to safeguard the sovereignty and stability of the states within our federal system.

By making senators directly elected, the 17th Amendment severed the structural bond between the states and the federal government. What we now have, in effect, are two houses of representatives—one reflecting the people’s voice, the other pretending to—but neither serving as the guardian of the states that the Founders intended.

The supposed “reforms” of the 17th Amendment did not fix corruption or political gridlock. We still have both, only now with higher stakes and more money. Senators may be chosen by the people, but many are financed, influenced, and effectively controlled by unelected billionaires and national interests who use them for their own purposes rather than for the good of the states they represent.

We must return to accountability and balance. Repealing the 17th Amendment is not a reactionary idea—it is a necessary correction to restore the constitutional balance between the states and the federal government. The Founders understood human nature. They built a system of checks and balances precisely because they knew men are not angels. The Senate, chosen by state legislatures, was designed to moderate passions, restrain excesses, and protect state authority.

A repeal would not require us to resurrect the old system in identical form. The states could—and should—modernize their methods of appointment. One possible model would mirror the appointment of state judges: the governor nominates, and the legislature advises, consents, and either confirms or blocks. Each state could craft its own process, maintaining autonomy while ensuring that its senators answer to the people’s elected representatives, not to Washington insiders or campaign financiers.

End the permanent campaign. One of the most tangible benefits of repeal would be the end of Senate campaign theater. Senators would no longer need to spend years grandstanding for cameras or raising millions of dollars to secure reelection. They would receive their “marching orders” not from unelected donors or media elites, but from the officials chosen by their own states’ citizens.

How many times must we remind ourselves…we have a republic not a democracy. The United States was founded as a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. The Senate was intended to protect the interests of the states, to check the impulses of the House, and to provide long-term stability against the changing winds of public opinion. When the 17th Amendment converted senators into popular politicians, it blurred that distinction—and the results are visible everywhere: endless gridlock, nationalized politics, and the near-erasure of state sovereignty.

Repeal of the 17th Amendment would not diminish democracy; it would restore federalism, strengthen local control, and reestablish the balance of powers that once made the American system both resilient and free.

When the states lost their seat at the federal table, the people lost their shield against central power.

​It’s time to give that seat back.