I disagree. While the 17th is an obstacle, it's not the ONLY answer to recovering states' rights. In fact, I'm not convinced it would have that much impact in and of itself. I don't believe it should, but I think the 17th could actually remain in place as long as enough states flexed their Constitutional muscle re the 10th and other amendments. Not to mention the whole body of the Constitution.
JMO, but I believe we should push, prod and otherwise encourage every state in the union to begin to assert their Constitutional rights AND duties. I'm all but convinced it may be our last shot at revocering our Republic.
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Now I disagree with your stance that the 17th Amendment is of negligible impact. The 17th Amendment is the main reason most states have to go begging hat-in-hand to the Fed. - IT NEEDS TO GO.