[Jacquerie]

Well, as I think I briefly touched on in the body of my post, the presence of the states was fundamental to the framers’ plan. Two democratically derived houses of congress was never seriously considered. Were it not for difficult travel in the 18th century, our reps would be elected annually. Six years between elections? Not a chance. The voting conduct of senators proves our framers concern, for even radical leftist senators generally moderate in the year leading up to election.

The framers set interest against interest to secure our rights. The states have a different viewpoint than joe blow voter.

Consider this, if the states appointed senators, would anti-10th amendment jurists have a chance to a federal bench if their past writings expressed disdain for the 10th?

Want to repeal Roe and a host of unconstitutional decisions? Repeal the 17th and watch.

[rlmorel]

I agree 100% with your view on the 17th Amendment.

One of the biggest problems I see is an out of control monstrosity of a federal government, and states are helpless against the extortion practiced by the dissemination of the federal highway funds and other such things.

It is impossible for states to have any independence when that kind of money is being thrown around.

We need to find a way to get more power into the hands of the states. We need to abolish things like the Department of Education and let states and local governments determine the best way to deal with things like that.