Of course I'm aware of this. However, NOTHING you have written in even addresses the fact that your entire thesis is predicated on the belief that state governments will do a better job than the federal government. You seem to distrust the federal government while implicitly trusting the states to do the right thing; I, on the other hand, don't trust EITHER of them to preserve rights.
Further you have seemingly chosen to ignore my request that you offer any evidence that the composition of the Senate would be demonstrably different if Senators were appointed by state legislatures. You don't address the FACT that members of the legislatures are often among the most powerful members of the state party; I am unaware of a SINGLE senator who didn't have nearly unanimous support of his party members in the state legislature when he was elected.
What you are arguing in favor of is amending the Constitution in such a way that takes the power to elect senators AWAY FROM WE THE PEOPLE and gives more power to the state. This is contrary to the principles of individual rights, will strengthen the oligarchical structure and end any possibility of grass roots resistance. I have mentioned what happened here in Virginia last summer (and I realize it deals with the House and not the Senate, but the principle remains) where grass roots efforts resulted in Dave Brat beating Eric Cantor for the GOP nomination, I can assure you that this would have NEVER been the case if left to the Virginia General Assembly.
Now to the notion of "states rights", there is a huge difference between "rights" which are inherent and "powers" which are enumerated by We the People. The phrase "states rights" appears NOWHERE in the Constitution, like the non-existent "separation of church and state" (a phrase that not surprisingly was found in the Constitution of the Soviet Union), this phrase was espoused by those who wanted to justify a state's power to strip people of their God-given rights. Prior to the Civil War fifteen states exercised their "right" to declare that huge portions of their population were property rather than persons and therefore had no rights.
When individual rights come into conflict with states rights, the states will ALWAYS win and the Founding Fathers knew this, our Constitution is designed to protect the individual from the state and the states. Libertarians wish to bestow upon the fifty states a mantle of nobility that is not only unmerited, but quite dangerous as well.
As far as amendments go, I would get rid of the 16th, 17th, rewrite the 14th, and add a life at conception amendment, add a term limits for judges amendment, an amendment requiring a total annual budget by a date certain, a marriage amendment, a prohibition of federal control and/or ownership of land amendment, an amendment giving enforcement power to Congress, and an amendment requiring advice and consent on executive actions.
In an ideal world, it is easier to have influence over a smaller piece of geography than over a larger. That was the purpose of the senators being selected by the state legislature. My state legislative district here in southern ohio can be driven across in an hour. I know my state rep, I know many who know him, I’ve met him a number of times, and I actually know what he believes.
If I had to pick a delegate to select a senator, he’s on the list of one I’d pick from our area. Ideally, this is replicated throughout our state.
And that is why a properly functioning legislative selection of a senator is a better idea than a state wide campaign, in my opinion.
I don’t often disagree with you, Wags. Maybe if I didn’t know my state legislator, I’d feel differently. But, I don’t think it’s hard anywhere in the USA for a person to know their local state rep....or work to replace one.
The Founding States are the ones who established the federal Senate and gave the power to vote for federal Senators uniquely to state lawmakers so that the states could protect themselves in Congress.
"The States should be left to do whatever acts they can do as well as the General Government." --Thomas Jefferson to John Harvie, 1790.
Having most of the country’s tax dollars going to one legislative body in the USA just makes it easier for the crook politicians to steal those tax dollars imo. And what’s worse is that DC has no constitutional justification for most of those tax dollars.
Under the Constitution, probably most of the country’s tax dollars would remain in the individual states which arguably makes it harder for crook politicians to steal.
And if the voters in a given state just sit on their hands while their state politicians bury their state in debt, then we can let the state sink and remove a star from the flag.
I don't often disagree with you, wags, but the direct election of Senators does more to dilute individual rights than having the Senators elected by state legislatures. If we are going to have the Senators directly elected by the people of the States, then there is no purpose in even having a Senate. The whole idea of the Senate was to have a body of Federal Legislators who are directly answerable to the state which they represent. The individual still has a measure of power in that they elect the legislatures and the legislatures then pick the Senator. A Senator that ignores the will of the people of the state will not likely ever get a second term. McCain and Flake are good examples of Senators who would have never been chosen for a second term by the Arizona legislature. But because they are able to form coalitions with democrats and weak kneed republicans, they are able to ignore the interests of their state and continue to give more and more power to the federal Leviathan.
When you allow open primaries and direct Senate elections, you have a recipe for the complete disregard of individual liberty.