OK please help me out a little on this one. I see it's a popular suggestion. I don't understand how it would be a big help. Not saying I disagree. Just saying I don't understand the approach. I'm sure there is a good explanation, I just haven't been informed yet.
OOOOK. Never mind. I get the concept.
Repeal of the 17th Amendment makes United States senators directly appointed by the state legislatures, as they were at our nation's founding, and representative of the will of each state and its citizens. This action would check the federal government's proclivity to pass laws binding the states to unfunded mandates. It would increase the sovereignty of the several states and restore true federalism back into our system of government.
Have to think about that a bit. My initial thought is it sounds good but I'm not sure the intended consequence would be the actual result. What's to prevent collusion between the state and federal legislatures and more corruption? One thing that occures to me is limiting the federal senate terms to less than 6 years. Too much time goes by in six years. A lot of damage can be done and forgotten in that period of time. It seems senators are less accountable as a result.
Getting rid of the 17th Amendment would give those states that want a greater say in federal legislation to do so; for example, the federal government's incursion on an area of traditional state control will generally get greater notice by the state legislature and executive than by the individual residents of that state, so the state, as such, would have a greater incentive to instruct its Senators to oppose the incursion whereas the individual residents of that state are very unlikely to demand such opposition from their Senators. Right now, because Senators are popularly elected, they listen to the individual residents and give short(er) shrift to the state legislature as such because they know that its the individual voters, not the legislature, that butters their bread.
