I've never heard it said, but the 17th Amendment also denies the right of the people to have a Republican form of government (As defined by the Constitution at the time of ratification).
Surprise, Surprise! The great and noble experiment failed on the day the 17th was ratified. But that is not really true, for the Supreme Law of the Land cannot be diminished, even by ratification of an amendment.
The Amendment is repugnant to the Constitution. Not in pursuance to the Constitution/Bill of Rights. Why are we still allowing senators to be elected by popular vote? Why has no one filed a suit against the government charging deprivation of rights?
IIRC, all but three states have either ratified the Seventeenth Amendment or joined the Union after its ratification. The legislatures of all such states can be deemed to have consented to their loss of suffrage.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if the legislature of one of the three non-consenting states passed an act to appoint someone to the Senate for a full term without its citizens having voted for that person. IMHO, those states' legislators have the authority under the Constitution to do precisely that. If they do not have such authority, then they have no real suffrage in the Senate. Since they never consented to the loss of suffrage in that body, forcing it upon them would be unconstitutional.
Some might argue that giving all states no suffrage gives them "equal" suffrage. True, in a sense, zero does equal zero. On the other hand, I think it's pretty clear that an amendment that overtly abolished the Senate entirely would be deemed unconstitutional unless it was ratified unanimously (even though there, as here, all states would equally have no suffrage). I see no reason the Seventeenth should be any different.