U.S. Senators Cannot Serve Two Masters

When the U.S. Constitution was ratified, it was understood that the Senate was to represent the interest of the States.  This arrangement was designed as a safeguard against rampant populism and a check upon the ambitions of the federal government.  Then the 17th Amendment was passed.  Now, the States are being turned into vassalages and the citizenry enslaved by ambitious politicians and unchecked bureaucrats.  I’m here to say that the U.S. Senate cannot serve two masters.  Either they represent the interest of their state, or that of the federal government.  So far, it has been the latter.

Many believe that it’s impossible to repeal the 17^th Amendment.  The argument is made that the individual voter would rather have a say as to who shall represent them in the Senate rather than allowing their state’s legislature to make that choice.  What we are seeing in many states is the interest of urban areas dominating that of rural or less populated districts.  Sometimes these senators don’t vote in the interest of either.  Before the 17^th Amendment the states had the ability to recall rogue senators.  Now we have to wait 6 years for these super-legislators to come to the polls. 

Something has to be done about the U.S. Senate.  If we can’t repeal the 17^th Amendment then we must find other means to make them more accountable.  One way is to shorten their terms.  The other is to repeal Article 1 Section 6 [1] of the U.S. Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.

We shall continue to pay the Representatives out of the U.S Treasury, but Senators will have their salaries ascertained and paid by their state’s legislature.  That is how we can ensure they vote in the interest of their state.  There is a precedent.  The following excerpt from The Five Royal Governors of North Carolina 1729 – 1775 demonstrates what happens to those who serve one master at the expense of the citizenry:

The most ever-present problem of his entire administration – and that of the other royal governors – was the problem of his salary.  As has been noted already, the governor was a royal agent, a servant of the King and his lieutenant in the colony.  As such he was not really responsible to the assembly or the people.  And yet he was dependent upon the colonial assembly for his salary.  It is easy to see what an effective weapon this could be:  either the governor signed assembly’s bills into law, however much they displeased him, or they withheld his salary.

Withhold a senator’s salary and we’ll see a change in attitude from these super-legislators.

Source:  http://www.amazon.com/Royal-Governors-North-Carolina-1729-1775/dp/0865260761