Heeding the warning, the States rejected ratifying the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Instead, it became a progressive win of monstrous proportions if you believe it was properly ratified. There are questions in some minds if it was truly properly ratified.
Red Beckman had a few things to say about the Seventeenth as did this group: http://www.thecnc.org/Documents/17thAmendment.htm
My own contention is this: In 1913 so called progressives managed to change how Senators were elected, turning Senators into Representatives of the people but they failed to change the term of office which should have been two years not six.
Well, nothing is stopping us from rejecting it through nullification. Unless you prefer the Article V route, which in my humble opinion is going to be more difficult to do. Ten States with the Governor and Legislature just agreeing to say no to the Seventeenth would win the day for most of the rest.
Now, whether there would then be a fundamental change in the type of person chosen to represent a State vs what is now in the Senate, would be the question on most people’s mind, and time would be needed to resolve the issue.
I haven’t read anything of substance regarding non-ratification of the 17A. Yes, any event it is a progressive win of monstrous proportions . . . that must go. I clicked your link and checked out some articles. I can’t say I’m a nullification supporter. State nullification of national laws would render the union a confederacy of independent states. OTOH, administrative regulations from DC deserve no respect from the states and should be actively opposed.
I’ve been careful to never guarantee the outcome of an Article V COS. It is just the best course of peaceful action to possibly reverse the rot.
Oh, to what does “16 American Jurisprudence” refer?