It's the same reason why the anti-17thers can't explain why all those wonderful state-legislature appointed U.S. Senators enacted the 16th amendment (federal income tax) back in 1913, BEFORE popularly elected Senators, if they were supposedly serving "state interests" back then and wouldn't DREAM of imposing some horrible federal mandate on the states.
The answer, of course, is that these state legislatures just aren't the "vision of the founding fathers" utopia that Mark Levin claims they are. Many are as bad or WORSE than the federal government. Hence, the reason the 17th amendment was created in the first place.
I was always taught that the idea behind the 17th was that special interests were able to corrupt and control state legislatures with relatively little money and that bribing the entire electorate of a state would be beyond their means—hence the 17th amendment. I have no doubt that that was true in many states. But by giving up the concept that the Senate represented the states’ governments, corrupt or not, I still cannot fathom why 3/4 of the state legislatures gave that power away.
As to the income tax, the argument was that the tariff was unfair to the poor, since they tended to buy cheaper imported goods. And only the very wealthy (I believe those making over 10,000 1913 dollars) would have to pay any income tax all. I don’t think the income tax was looked as diminishing states’ power in the Federal government.
The Senate was already corrupted by women’s suffrage by 1913.
Every state where women got the vote, government began to grow.
If the vote is not taken away from women, they will destroy the United States.