[Durus]

Are you sure you know what the 17th amendment is? It allows for the direct election of senators who used to be appointed by the states (in various and assorted ways). What that meant was that the states (not state legislatures) no longer had representation for their interests in congress so it removed an important check to Federal power. You see, the senate represented the states and the house represented the people, creating something our Founders called "checks and balances", which was an important concept in the constitution. I have never heard anyone say that the 17th amendment caused state legislatures to be powerless and would never defy the fed, that is nonsensical as the legislature is not the entirety of state government.

I guess a pro-17th amendment person such as yourself can point to all of the beneficial aspects of the amendment since 1913? After all our constitution and our country has done so well since then.

[BillyBoy]

>> I guess a pro-17th amendment person such as yourself can point to all of the beneficial aspects of the amendment since 1913? <<

You want to help him out here, Field? There can probably be dozens of examples since 1913 of patriotic conservatives who never would have gotten anywhere near the U.S. Senate if it were up to state legislatures to make that decision. Examples include Senator James Buckley (Conservative-NY), Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL), Ted Cruz (R-TX), etc., etc. It would be a cold day in hell before the state legislatures of those states ever appointed them Senator.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Durus, are you aware of WHY the 17th was enacted ? It had long ago ceased to be what you described. The Senate was filled with partisan hacks, bosses, rich guys buying seats representing individual special interests, everything BUT the “states.” The whole country knew what a joke it was by the 1910s and how completely out of touch that body was, and this was the only viable way to rectify the situation and make Senators accountable.