The founders who certainly knew about direct representation having vested it in the House of Representatives consciously declined to do so in the Senate. They were fully aware of the vices as well as the virtues of popular representation. They were also fully aware of the virtues of federalism and the need to maintain the states as a separate power from the federal government rather than it supplicants as they now have become.
Anyone who without further proof asserts second sight about the intention of the framers at the turn of the 20th century must concede, to be logically consistent, that the framers would also have supported the prohibition amendment. And since your second sight extends to knowing that they would not today seek to repeal the 17th amendment, you must also concede that they would have opposed repealing the prohibition amendment. Anyone who knows how much George Washington spent buying booze on election day, knows how absurd it is to impute such motives to our founders.
I suppose when we're in the business of making sweeping pronouncements it doesn't matter overmuch what the state of our knowledge is. If you're going to assert future knowledge for the founders you might as well go whole hog, as you did, and assert that "100%" would support your position. Funny, not 100% of them supported their own Constitution.
I prefer to rest on the Constitution they actually wrote when I am in the business of telling the world what they actually meant.
