Changing the Constitution back wouldn't transform the country (or the states or their legislatures) into something it hasn't been for generations.
The idea is so straightforward and simple that it's attractive to many people, though.
Exactly. It’s sad that they fail to see that the best Senator in that body today (Cruz) could not have even been elected with the repeal of the 17th, yet they keep humping away at this fantasy notion of theirs.
Correct. The state governments and their legislatures in 1912 bore no resemblence to the vision "the founders" had for them in 1789, and were mostly fat cat corrupt politicians instead of "wise statesmen".
>> Changing the Constitution back wouldn't transform the country (or the states or their legislatures) into something it hasn't been for generations. <<
Changing the U.S. Constitution to repeal the 17th amendment would revert the U.S. Senate back to what it was before the adaptation of the amendment -- a body of unaccountable socialist RATs and RINOs who got their cushy jobs by dolling out big $$$ and corrupt favors to their party bosses in smoke filled rooms. Ironically, these state legislature appointed hacks that you love so much were responsible for the 16th and 17th amendments that you detest so much.
BOOM! You got it.
But understand that AM talk radio is imagination-land.
In it anything could happen if only Americans would do what they will never do. What has 1/8 of 1% of US population heard this idea?