[dennisw]

The 17th Amendment basically destroyed the 10th Amendment and transferred all that State power to Washington.

You are right about this but I wonder if this was the intent of the 17th Amendment or an unforeseen consequence?

 

 

What would the Senate look like without the 17th Amendment?

Scott Bomboy April 8, 2013

It’s the 100th anniversary of the 17th Amendment, leading us to consider what today’s U.S. Senate would look like if its members weren’t directly elected by voters.

Source: Wikimedia Commons.

The answer is simple: It would be probably be controlled by the Republicans, with a chance that it could be a filibuster-proof majority.

Related Link: Happy Birthday, 17th Amendment!

Given that the House is already controlled by the GOP, laws enacted by the Democrats in the past two years may not have fared well with a Republican-controlled Congress.

Prior to 1913, when the 17th Amendment was ratified, state legislatures elected two U.S. senators to represent them in Congress.

Members in each state House and each state Senate, in most cases, would meet separately to pick a candidate as its representative in the U.S. Senate.

 

[fieldmarshaldj]

That Republican "majority" would be non-Conservative. It would be a plethora of big government squishes, no Tea Partiers (no Cruz, no Lee, no Paul), with an all-Communist Democrat opposition, of which 40 or more seats would be perpetually in their hands. It would also be hopelessly corrupt, just as the body was when the 17th was ratified.