“IMO, the states voluntarily gave up their rights when they ratified the 17th Amendment back in 1913.”
Senators are still expected to serve the people of their state, no matter how they’;re elected. I’ll agree that the precipitous abandonment of states’ rights coincided with the change. Then again, the Civil War didn’t help. Also, the House was always popularly elected. Did we really expect the Senate to be our saviors? Would electing them through state legislatures really have distinguished them from the whole rest of the federal government, whatever branch be they from?
It would drive out all the campaign financing that results from 33 of the most expensive elections that occur every two years. It's that need for campaign financing that drives loyalty away from the states and towards the special interest donors, and the party blocs.
-PJ
Yes, I definitely think so. I don’t think that the Founders intended for the Senate to represent the people of the states....that’s why they formed the House & had their terms of office for only 2 years. The Senate was supposed to represent the state legislatures, in order to help prevent the concentration of power from shifting from the states to the newly-formed federal government.
You are right about the “Civil War” (I prefer to call it the War for Southern Independence, but that’s off topic here) — Lincoln set the stage for increasing power to the executive branch.
In both cases the rights of the states were squashed like a bug.