I’ve been through this crap repeatedly with you guys and your pie-in-the-sky fantasies of what the Senate will be with its repeal, and you will never convince me of its soundness. All you’re doing is removing my right to directly elect a Senator (and don’t lecture me on influencing my state legislators — I’m in a VRA State Senate district and a perpetually Democrat State House and U.S. House district, meaning the only race I’ll have a say in is the Governorship and nothing else), and I will oppose that with every fiber of my being. There’s a damn good reason why the 17th was passed, and a good deal of it had to do with just how out of touch the Senators were becoming from their constituents and how more and more they were representing their own narrow personal interests and less with the Founding Fathers’ ideal of jealously standing up for their states. You’d also have a good number of states would be perpetually out of reach for electing Republican members (and even those where you’d have Republicans, the likelihood that they’d be RINOs is considerable — meaning more Lindsey Graham, McCain, Bob Bennett and Maine Twin types rather than DeMints or Coburns).
You forgot a couple of more points why repealing the 17th is not the panacea some think it to be.
1. When state legislatures were divided, US Senate seats went unfilled, sometimes for YEARS.
2. In corrupt machine politics states, a US Senator often owned the state legislature. It’s easier to bribe 200 people than to bribe 2 million people.
3. When the amendment was adopted, many states already elected US Senators by popular vote. The legislature was required by law to elect whomever the people chose.
I think to many Freepers think we would get a bunch of Henry Clays, John C. Calhouns and Daniel Websters. We would instead get a bunch of William A. Clarks, a corrupt turn of the century Montana Senator who was a poster boy for the 17th amendment.
You're right that it would never be repealed, because said action would require the approval of those who profit by the Amendment's presence.
But, the design of government held a State-appointed Senate as a foundation of a republican form of government. Several Federalists (Papers) explain their design.
Now, we move to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, where we find its only guarantee: "a Republican form of Government."
We have a contradiction! We can't have a republican form of government and a popular Senate! Either we trash the 17th or we trash the guarantee. I opt for the former.
I make my point here. The entire last chapter is dedicated to this subject.
Your defense of the 17 Amendment has faulty premises.
At present, a senator from a state can, and often is, funded by national (or international interests like Saudis, Soros, Iranians supporting Obama) rather than state interests and issues.
However, the central issue is whether we are going to allow Congress to do charity. Or, do we follow the Constitution and remember rep. Crockett’s famous “It’s not yours to give.” concept.
Washington had it right - “The Constitution is sacredly obligatory upon all.”