Democrats (and RINOs) and I DIFFER HEAVILY ON WHAT OUR STATE'S INTERESTS ARE. And by the way NONE OF THEM OPPOSE FEDERAL POWER (unless it's used for good like banning queer marriage). This is part of your fantasy.
Jeez. The problem is socialism and what is called "liberalism" not how Senators are elected.
Federal government is oppressive. State government is oppressive. Local government is oppressive.
O quite agree. But how exactly are we to make sure that our representatives represent us? Well, the FF's thought that if we elect the state reps for short terms, we could punish them for selecting the wrong Senators.
Federal government is oppressive. State government is oppressive. Local government is oppressive.
Gosh. Agree again. So did the FFs, who wanted to keep (IMNVHO) the levers of elective power as close to home as possible, so the oppressor at the local level had to be very accessible. (If it weren't for TV and the Internet, more of these local yokels would be assuming ambient temperature more frequently)
Problem: We have grown a sort of governmental cancer. That is, the bureaucracies that rule us, soldier on no matter who is in office, and can themselves "reward" the behavior they want from the elected. Their money must be taken away.
Virginia is a perfect example of what the repeal of the 17th amendment would do. Va would have 2 Republican Senators right now if the 17th was ditched.
Liberalism is certainly a problem. It was fertilized and nurtured by the rush of progressive amendments/mistakes a hundred years ago.
Question: What is the probability a president would bother to nominate judges to federal benches who had shown hostility to the 10th Amendment? Why would a senate of the states even consider them?
BTW, spare me your silly theatrics. They have no effect.