Explicitly we would regain an important check and balance, that the 17th Amendment didn't even bother to address. It's like it was written by complete buffoons who had never read the constitution and had no idea what it was trying to accomplish.
Your side is fine with all these high-minded notions of what you BELIEVE would happen with a return to legislative elections without facing the bleak reality of the people that would be sent (and more importantly, whom would NOT be sent). You would not have Henry Clays or John C. Calhouns, you would have an execrable collection of left-wing RINOs and ultra-left-wing Democrats, almost completely insulated and unaccountable.
My Side? I am only speaking for myself and only making a constitutional argument, I don't have an ideological premise other than that. You are the one making wild speculations as to the make up of the Senate, regardless have you looked at the make up of the Senate now? Can you honestly make a claim that they aren't puppets or puppeteers because they are directly elected? Could they possible spend more time trying to get more pork for their states? Repealing something that ignored a basic concept of the constitution in favor of some supposed harm that might be done, doesn't address the harm that has already been done, and that harm is historically obvious.
As bad as you think things are now, you have no idea how much worse they could be with repeal. The notion of empowering politicians even more than they are now is repugnant.
Pelosi, Boxer, Reid etc. could be worse? Sorry I beg to differ, the 17th amendment has created a far worse situation than we were ever in previously. Repealing it would bring back a vital check and balance and certainly doesn't empower Senators beyond the original intent of the constitution.
If the Founding Fathers were around to see, I think they would agree. What they wanted in a Senate is not how it turned out in practice, and the 17th was the only way to correct the corrupted and decayed situation as best as could be done.
What the founding father intended was that the states have representation in congress and the 17th broke that invalidating the entire concept of congress. You think they would really approve of that? If Thomas Jefferson's ghost appeared and asked "why would you even keep the senate if you were going to directly elect them, doesn't that make it just like the house? What about apportionment which was an important part of representation? Regardless Sir, what did your muddling get you? What are the fruits of your labors"" would you rethink your plainly broken axioms? For all of your histrionics about a "corrupt and decayed" situation, the 17th amendment was really just power play to increase the power of the Federal government at the expense of the States. As a result, 100 years later we are quickly becoming a police state, and our Senate is a cesspool of scum never even imagined in 1913.
If nothing else this should show anyone that the founders knew what they were doing and the 17th was a monumental blunder.
Your recovery of a "check and balance" would exist only on paper. In practice, it would be a fantasy. How would you have addressed the corruption going on in the Senate which snowballed throughout the latter half of the 19th century into the 20th ? What about the situations that occurred in Delaware which kept that state from even sending members to DC ?
"My Side? I am only speaking for myself and only making a constitutional argument, I don't have an ideological premise other than that."
Yes, your side. The small group of FReepers floating this same anti-17th flight of fancy, but refuse to deal with the reality of what that would entail today were it to occur. If you have an idea or notion about something and trot it out, you should consider what it would lead to. Now I'm sure you believe it would do all these wonderful things, but you're fooling yourself, because you're not weighing it against the political realities of the present time. As I tell the anti-17thers, what you want is a restoration of a Senate elected in 1789. Consider the realities of those that were participating in the political process then vs. now (or even vs the 1910s). In order to remotely restore a Senate that fits your notions of what it should be, you'd have to drastically alter the people participating in the electoral process. Personally, I don't think THAT would be a bad idea.
"You are the one making wild speculations as to the make up of the Senate, regardless have you looked at the make up of the Senate now?"
I'm not making wild speculations, I'm giving specific names based on the current dynamics and reality. You, however, have not given me any names (which is another problem with your side -- your Senators are nameless, fictional individuals that don't exist in our reality).
"Can you honestly make a claim that they aren't puppets or puppeteers because they are directly elected? Could they possible spend more time trying to get more pork for their states? Repealing something that ignored a basic concept of the constitution in favor of some supposed harm that might be done, doesn't address the harm that has already been done, and that harm is historically obvious."
My reply remains the same, yes, they can and will be worse. Every member now could be removed by being voted out of office by the people. You remove that option completely by repeal of the 17th, and in those states with heavily gerrymandered majorities (Dem), you guarantee the worst of the worst a job for perpetuity. You're empowering the political class.
"Pelosi, Boxer, Reid etc. could be worse? Sorry I beg to differ, the 17th amendment has created a far worse situation than we were ever in previously. Repealing it would bring back a vital check and balance and certainly doesn't empower Senators beyond the original intent of the constitution."
Pelosi is not a member of the Senate, but I'll tell you right now that she would easily make the transition, because with a hyper-Dem legislature in California, cancers like her would float to the top. Reid would also not have to worry, because the Dems have had a combined majority in the NV legislature for many years. Fortunately, the voters of NV can bypass that gerrymandered majority and elect Republicans.
"What the founding father intended was that the states have representation in congress and the 17th broke that invalidating the entire concept of congress."
Nope. It was the Senators that broke it. When their own personal agendas and power-seeking overtook their sense of duty to representing and protecting their state interests against growing federal encroachment, they destroyed what the Founding Fathers intended. It was already broke by the Civil War.
"You think they would really approve of that? If Thomas Jefferson's ghost appeared and asked "why would you even keep the senate if you were going to directly elect them, doesn't that make it just like the house? What about apportionment which was an important part of representation? Regardless Sir, what did your muddling get you? What are the fruits of your labors"" would you rethink your plainly broken axioms? For all of your histrionics about a "corrupt and decayed" situation, the 17th amendment was really just power play to increase the power of the Federal government at the expense of the States. As a result, 100 years later we are quickly becoming a police state, and our Senate is a cesspool of scum never even imagined in 1913."
My histrionics ? You cannot get back what was broken long before the 17th unless you are prepared to fundamentally transform and return the country to what it was 200 years ago and allowing only that certain class of individuals to participate in the decisionmaking process.
"If nothing else this should show anyone that the founders knew what they were doing and the 17th was a monumental blunder."
The blunder was not seeing men corrupting the system early on long before the 17th was on the horizon. That thing about power corrupting, y'know...
The founders knew what they were doing when they made the constitution amendable.
WTF does the 17th amendment have to do with Pelosi?
Newsflash, she is elected by a house congressional district's voters.