I still don't know that I buy your argument about direct elections of Senators, but I don't know that I see any harm either, so I'm all for switching it back.

Heck, I would like to see a "Not Yours To Give" amendment. You know, like Davy Crockett once said. Then they could elect Senators at random and it wouldn't make that much of a difference. :)

Al, if anyone ever calls you a populist, you let me know and I'll kick them in the balls.

I agree 100% percent. The Constitution is the genius of America. Tamper with it and terrible things will happen.

While I'm not affiliated with this site, I recommend it to all freedom-loving Americans: http://freeamerican.com/

Peace.

Well, Eric, let's just say I'm not interested in having the public vote on whether I have a right to be left the hell alone.

And if you want to kick the scrotums of some liar that calls me dirty names, such as "populist" or "Republican", I'll be glad to hold them for you.

Teamwork.

I heard an interview by Neal Boortz of Zell Miller on Friday. Zell Miller said he is going to introduce a bill calling for the repeal of 17. He said he doesn't expect it to get much of anywhere but he hopes to have " a great deal of fun with it." This interview is the first I have ever heard of the history of 17. It sure seems to fly in the face of the Founding Fathers. If "We the People" could get something going to repeal 17, we should go ahead and smack 16 too. In fact there is a movement growing against 16. See www.FairTax.org for more info.

Oh, I'm all for smacking down the 16th Amendment too. That would definitely slow down the Congress from a lot of mischief.

Again, one big point about the 17th Amendment is that having senators elected the old way by their state legislators rather than by direct popular election left one link in the appropriations chain somewhat isolated from the need to buy off voters with bread and circuses. They were the one legislative body who could afford to say no.