[LibLieSlayer]

Your premise about the 17th amendment turning the intended functional behavior on its head may have some credence. However from all of my readings from the debate that raged over this amendment, the corrupt effect on some Senators from certain political machines, as well as Senators outright "buying" of their seats, was substantive in its creation and implementation.

I can find nothing in its creation that would change the Senate's responsibilities in nominations of Federal officers.

Thought provoking post. Thanks!

LLS

[Les_Miserables]

I agree various arguments were made for and against the 17th but the one that says seats were purchased seems a little disengenous since they clearly are purchased today and now legally by special interests and personal wealth (Corsine, Schumer, etc.) (Any bought seat previously was done so illegally). Regarding documented responsibilities: they obviously did not change but how they are carried out obviously did which was my point. Special Interests now outweigh the health of our nation in the process...NARAL, NOW, etc. as a direct result of the 17th. (re Bork, Thomas, even Ginsberg v ACLU) Sorry I was not more clear. It's moot anyway since repeal of the 17th is unlikely.