In light of how incredibly enormous our federal government has become since the 17th Amendment was adopted in 1913, maybe the Daily News should rethink its position against the idea of repealing it.

The framers of our Constitution feared a large, unaccountable federal government because of the abuse the colonists had suffered under the arbitrary rule of King George III.

As a result, these forward-thinking patriots filled our Constitution with a labyrinth of checks and balances designed to limit the centralization of power in futuristic Kings.

One “check” they thought would stymie the growth of a national government was the stipulation that state legislatures should have the power to appoint its U.S. senators. The intent was to give the states the ability to rein in the power of its senators by making them accountable to the states, given that the House of Representatives was elected by the people.

Unfortunately, the adoption of the 17th Amendment converted this restraining power into a democratic one using the popular myth that citizens can somehow limit the power of U.S. senators by democratically electing them. Given that a single U.S. senator can halt the progress of any bill marching through Congress, the government-restraining pressure imposed by democratically electing senators has not limited, but extraordinarily expanded their power to tax and spend.

That’s why it’s now important to debate repealing the 17th Amendment.

Chris Derry

Alvaton