League of the South Blog has had an interesting back and forth in the last few days about the 17th Amendment and the pros and cons of doing so. None of the LOS Blog posts have permalinks.
I am for repealing the 17th and returning the election of U.S. Senators to state legislators.
Though some will say that this will lend itself to bribery and corruption, one has to realize that there is bribery and corruption when it comes to popular election of U.S. Senators. So with the cat winning that argument, the reason the 17th should be repealed is that state governments need to have influence in the Federal legislative process. The people already have their chamber, the U.S. House.
Most unfunded and unconstitutional mandates on state governments and their spending by the Federal government (especially in the area of social welfare for illegal aliens), and most of the constant carrot-and-stick mechanisms that various Federal agencies use to make state governments conform to a Federal standard (as an example, Federal highway money for a certain legal drinking age, or a legal definition of intoxication), would not happen, if the U.S. Senate and its state legislature-elected members stood as a firewall countering abrogations toward states’ rights and interposition and concurrent majority.
In plain words, repealing the 17th is an important step toward ending Federal abuses of power.
[...] people (as well as the American) do not benefit from further democratization. Similarly, I am for repealing the 17th Amendment so that the American Senate, the relative equivalent to the British House of Lords, has members [...]