The 17th denied consent of the governed. It is as easy as that.
Every republic prior to ours featured, by definition, participation of the people either directly or through some form of representation. The law acted on the people, and the people were present in the legislative body. Perfect sense.
The American republic was different, for the constitution acted not only on the people, but the states as well.
In order to be consistent with republican theory and experience, the states MUST have a seat at the legislative table if the government is to constitutionally act on them. To remain consistent with fundamental republicanism, every clause in the constitution which dealt with the states should have been repealed upon ratification of the 17th.
Now that of course can't be done because the states, people and the government they created are thoroughly intertwined in their duties and powers.
Removing the states from congress makes as much sense as removing the people from congress. None.
That is my point, the states are essential to the smooth operation of our republic and cannot be removed without causing internal contradictions which must lead to dissolution or tyranny.
Very well said and insightful.
I think it was a post of yours several months ago that made me realize that the problem with the 17th was that it converted the Senate from a body of the states to a body of the parties. That problem then metastasized into the courts via advice and consent.
It would be much harder for strict party alignment to operate in a Senate where the members are selected by independent state legislatures, than it is today via party funding of constant general elections.
-PJ