The Founders of this nation made changing the Constitution a hard thing to do -- on purpose. That has not stopped candidates and activists in the Tea Party from asking for a reexamination of the 17th amendment, which took the election of U.S. Senators out of the hands of state legislators and put it directly into the hands of the people. One of the “fathers” of the Tea Party movement, Congressman Ron Paul, has been at the head of the pack in favor of an outright repeal of the 17th Amendment. After the results of the recent election, however, it is unlikely that his son Rand Paul feels the same way. If the 17th Amendment was not in place, then Rand Paul would not have been elected to the United States Senate. In fact, a Democrat would most certainly be on his way to Washington instead.
Read the rest here.
Comment: The Ivy League authors miss the central point for repealing the 17th Amendment because they are trapped in the left verses right democrat verses republican paradigm. It's not about "winning" elections for the party, rather it's about restoring the checks and balances the founders incorporated within the structure of the federalist system of government; a federalist system that no longer exists because the states do not have representation within the federal government. It's about taking the power away from 100 men and women who do not represent the state they came from, but who have become agents for special interest. Agents who transfer our wealth taken unjustly through direct taxation and turn it over to special interest.
Comment 2: Check out the comments at the link with the actual post. A commenter makes the point that the comments were actually better than the article, which I heartily agree.