Replies

1797, actually (or to the point, the election of 1796). And, yes, it has everything to do with the 17th Amendment. It was an unworkable situation that had to be changed. You yourself stated you had no problem with the original method, which was proven to be flawed.

By your reckoning, there should not even be ANY Amendments whatsoever because the original was perfect and infallible. The Founders would set you straight on that conclusion.

Abortion is a strawman argument that has nothing to do with what we’re discussing. Roe was based on a false assumption made by the court that decided their ideology trumped the Constitution.

Same with most of the laws and rulings made by the courts on the appropriate placement of religion with respect to state institutions. The mandate of “shall not establish” has been perverted into having virtually all religion purged from the state and those institutions while blatantly ignoring the part that says “shall not prohibit the free exercise thereof”, which of course the true intent was explicitly not have the federal government designate a specific Christian sect as the national church with the President serving as the head of the church in the same manner of the King/Queen of England serving as theirs (but allowing individual states the right to designate a sect if they so chose).

I disagree vehemently that the 17th is “an abomination.” It’s been argued to bits here. The initial point of the election of Senators was meant to represent the interests of the individual state legislatures and that there would be a gentleman’s agreement that if there was a change in the ideology/party of said legislature and if said Senator would fail to follow their instructions on how to vote, they would step aside for someone who would.

When Senators discovered they were under no (Constitutional) obligation to do so and that 6 years meant 6 years and they would vote as they pleased, the system was broken. Therefore, the Senators would represent themselves and not necessarily their states’ best interests. From that point, Senators were either they themselves a “special interest”, or the puppet of a small cabal of individuals (again, not representing the state legislatures), bosses or what have you.

This joke of a system reached the point where the people decided this failed method of choosing Senators had to go, and was duly ratified by the state legislatures (who had the choice of either doing just that or getting thrown out in favor of another group that would).

The notion of returning the power to corrupted state legislatures (especially those of endless Democrat regimes) is ludicrous and (to quote you) an abomination whose idea ought to be sent to the ash heap of history.