After perusing your blog, I can see why you’re arguing with my stand, but I don’t see justification for yours. I understand that you want to repeal the 17th, but what would you rather see in its place? Would you rather go back to a legislature appointed Senate? If so, how would you address the issues that spurred the abandonment of that system in the first place: The sudden turnovers in representation that occurred when party control of state legislatures changed hands? The ability to buy off 80 legislators to get a seat vs. the need to appeal to 100′s of thousands and millions of voters? The disconnect a governing body had from those that they rule?

I would agree with you that Senators are influenced by political forces outside their electorate, but I would also argue that in most cases the ultimate need to answer directly to their electorates outweighs the risk in the end.

Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t believe the majority of Senators are corrupt. I believe most are trying to do a good job for their constituents. In the end, though, I don’t think that the people of a state should have to elect a new legislature in order to replace a Senator that they don’t want.

From your blog:

We should fear the oligarchs more because our Constitution cannot be spoiled by bombs, the courts, or the President; only through legislation.

I agree with you about the bombs, but Presidents have equal power as Congress, and have been bypassing them for decades through executive orders. The courts are another story altogether. Radical judges have been writing their own laws for decades, without regard to Congress, the President, or the People.

As you agreed with the final statement in my post, I would think you would realize that the courts are more complicit than any other group in the watering down of the Constitution, since they are the ones who ultimately have the power to keep the other branches in line, yet choose not to.

You couldn’t be more wrong; the scholarship concerning this very subject has come out decidedly that our senate is more “influenced” today than it was prior to the 17th Amendment.

I am no historian, however I must point out that there are many fallacies regarding your overall argument that could be explained accurately through a little historical exploration.

I do however agree with your concluding statement.