“In opposition to the Framers, late 19th century progressives promoted a new purpose and a new foundation for the senate”
The first proposals for direct election of Senators began as early as 1826, so while fixating on the Progressives is always popular sport it ignores history. And prior to 1866 there wasn’t any consistency in how various States went about selecting Senators anyway. And when it finally was changed in 1913 it was done by Amendment, which last time anyone checked is the method that the Constitution itself requires.
The whole attempt to make a sacred cow out of State legislatures selecting Senators is ridiculous. Under the Articles of Confederation that preceded the Constitution all representation was selected by State legislatures. Switching to direct elections for the House under the Constitution wasn’t one of the hot debates featuring a warning that the Senate had to retain the old method. There was no magic under the state legislature method. Sometimes legislatures were so contentious no Senators were even chosen.
The 17A triggered a cascade of stunning downwind consequences, perhaps only second to the immediate post-Civil War amendments. As opposed to the 13th – 15th Amendments which reset society, the 17A reset our republican governing form. Overnight, the 17A transformed the Framers’ exquisite compound democratic/federal structure into a democratic form deadly to republics.1
Why the 17th Amendment? What enormous forces convinced the people, states, and congress to trade a proven, stable governing form for an unstable and dangerous system?
[snip]
Once the late 19th and early 20th century progressives took up the cause, the public soon embraced the notion that the solution to the ills of democracy was ever-more democracy.4
What were these perceived ills? In the decades following the Civil War, people gradually associated indirect election of senators with an outmoded, plutocratic Constitution. By contrast, many regarded direct election with reform, faith in the people, and progress.5 Progressives’ complaints fell into four broad categories: legislative deadlock, bribery/corruption, populism/progressivism, and political forces at the state level.
[more]
It matters, because unlike earlier proposals, the Progressives had growing government and undermining the Constitution as a specific goal. Earlier generations were merely trying to bring consistency to senatorial election, and had no anti-Constitutional intent.
It's in their own writing, the progressives. They were DONE with the Constitution. And still are, BTW.
<>The whole attempt to make a sacred cow out of State legislatures selecting Senators is ridiculous.<>
The Constitution acts on both the people and the states. Simple repbulican theory demands the states’ presence in the lawmaking body. Do you disagree?