Sorry, your argument for the 17th amendment lacks a good measure of reasoned thought.
Before the 17th amendment passage, we still had a strong constitutional republic. After passage, we lost our constitution and freedoms. We got gun control, abortion, restriction of private property and a dozen other attacks on our liberties.
If we had senators looking out for their states, we would have not seen the dissolution of the 9th and 10th amendments by the black-robed fascist courts over the past 100 years. Impeachment of justices would have happened.
I can’t agree with you; you need to to rethink your position and join us in the patriot movement.
Really? Half your fellow anti-17thers claim this happened in 1865, and Abraham Lincoln "destroyed our Republic". The other half of you claim we were a "storng constitutional Republic" in 1912. Your argument make more sense if the anti-17thers could get together in a room and agree on a unified talking about whether our Republic was "destroyed" in 1865 or 1913. Make up your minds.
>> We got gun control, abortion, restriction of private property and a dozen other attacks on our liberties. <<
Now you're blaming an amendment in 1913 for a bunch of legislation that didn't come up until the 60s and 70s. Liberals will blame the 2nd amendment on modern day school shootings, their argument doesn't have any more validity than yours.
Placing blame on this erosion on the 17th exclusively is absurd. The Senate was already corrupt by the 19th century and had been becoming moreso for decades. This was about direct accountability, plain and simple. Statesmen valiantly fighting for states rights was largely gone — it was ALL about power. You could make the argument that “looking out for the states” was effectively eviscerated with the Civil War.