Speaking out of ignorance is never a good thing.
It was originally intended for the State legislatures to pick their Senators so the state would have representation in fedgov. This was to assist in balancing power between the states and fed.
27 state legislatures are Republican controlled....ie both houses. (24 have R controlled governments - ie 24/27 have a pubbie gov too)
17 are dem controlled.
5 are split. Of those 1 has a R governor.
1 state legislature, Nebraska, is "non partisan."
Which would most likely mean the R's would have 54 in the Senate........to break this down for you, that would mean they'd have the majority they don't have.
We currently have two Houses at the federal level that are elected by popular vote.....ie mob rule and have the ability to vote the fruits of one's labor unto another.
There is no representation of the state at the federal level.
By returning power to the State, you would be less likely to see fedgov bullying the States ie raise the drinking age to 21 or you lose highway funding, or you must set the speed limit to 55mph or you lose xxxxx etc.
Further, you probably wouldn't have the GOP steering committee in SC(?) threatening their dumbass Senator for supporting cloture for Hagel's nomination vote.....in other words, the Senator would already be beholden to their State.
I meant Alabama, not SC......
I was thinking along the lines of TX (and others) putting forth legislation preventing federales from enforcing federal firearms laws within their respective state(s)....essentially stating the right of the state trumps fed law ala SC pre-Civil war. And mashed it into the topic at hand with Alabama.
But, I meant to add the above points as well, and accidentally hit "post" before I was done proofing.
The point is, the states (legislatures) would already have their ability to check fed power and wouldn't be trying to pass legislation after the fact to combat fed laws.
Repeat Offender, I could’ve spared you all that typing. This has been discussed repeatedly. I suggest reading this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2986688/posts
and a bit of a follow-up in this one:
Simply put, the belief that you’d get a better Senate with repeal of the 17th is a fallacy (or fantasy), because it runs smack into the political reality and dynamics of today. The likelihood of getting Conservatives committed to smaller government elected from a state government body desirous for big federal gov $$ is next to zero. Texas, for example, wouldn’t be sending Ted Cruz, it would be sending big government liberals like Karl Rove (as a thank you to Dubya) and David Dewhurst (the rich Lt Governor and establishment liberal who ordered the legislature to help elect him over Cruz at all costs).