A DYSFUNCTIONAL SENATE DID WHAT????

Just in case there's a patriot who stops by, and that patriot (you?), who is not convinced to activism on the issue of repealing the 17th Amendment, here's a thought to ponder:  

One of the more reasonable arguments against the importance of repealing the 17th Amendment –made reasonable due to public education on the matter of the need for the 17th Amendment– is that the appointed Senate had become dysfunctional, corrupted, and unresponsive to the needs of not only the state, but also to the needs of the People.  

If this is one of your arguments, please allow me to suggest some food for thought:  

Yes, one of the things we learned in school to justify the 17th Amendment was that the Senate had become too politicized; that constitutional republicanism was “too hard,” “too harsh,” and that an elected Senate would help in “softening republicanism,” thus, bringing the national government more in line with the people’s needs, allowing to become a more efficient institution.  

But please, stop for a moment and consider this: besides our current popularity of the Senate, and the Congress generally in today’s world, just think about the process of passing a constitutional amendment; you think we could possibly do such a thing today?  

The very concept of a popularly elected Senate over the original design of an elected Senate is a substantial and significant change affecting the entire purpose of, and the checks and balances of, every governmental institution, both federal and state, changing the function of all three branches of government. The profoundness of this change cannot be overstated.   

With that said, the then appointed Senate, that was reportedly dysfunctional, somehow was able to muster 2/3 majority of the Senate (along with 2/3 of the House), AND 3/4 of the state legislatures, and bring them all into an agreement to create and approve the 17th amendment to our Constitution. The fact that they could make this happen tells me the system was workable!  

The problem was not congressional dysfunction, or state corruption; the problem was with the very thing this Amendment strengthened— democracy .. Socialized Democracy and the perceived need to address proposed issues that should never have been addressed in the first place at the national level.

And now, today, what we have is an overbearing, over-encroaching band of elitists throughout all of government ONLY able to respond to the fewest among us who believe the world owes them a living.