Some of our founding fathers were from large states like Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York while others came from small states like Connecticut, Rhode Island and Georgia. Those from the large states wanted representation to be determined by population while those from the small states wanted each state to be equally represented.
A great compromise was proposed that became known as the Great Compromise. They created a bicameral legislature with one House to represent the people and a second House to represent the states.
This divided the power so that neither the large or the small states would be able to dominate the other. This separation of powers created checks and balances that would prevent the tyranny of the majority.
The senators were to be selected by their state legislatures while the members of the House of Representatives were chosen by the people.
With the passage of the 17th amendment the senate became a second version of the House of Reprentatives and the states were no longer represented.
Rather than having a republican form of government the ratification of the 17th amendment opened the door to democracy and the tyranny of the majority,
Ideally, the state legislatures would appooint the senators and then hold them accountable. Rather than waiting six years to vote a senator out offiece the state legislature would have the power to remove them from office whenever the senator failed to represent his or her state effectively.
The representation of the states in the senate was so important that in Article V the Constitution prohibit the governemt from depriving the states of equal representation without their consent.
Any state that has not ratified the 17th amendment has not given their consent and the 17th amendment only applies to the states that have ratificd the amendment.
Utah, Florida, Georgia,Mississippi, Kentucky, South Carolina and Virginia are protected by the provisions in Article V and should ignored provisions of the 17th Amendment.
Replies
As I understand it, any amendment, once ratified by 3/4 of the states, is legally binding upon all states. The states that did not ratify did not have enough numbers to reject the 17th Amendment. A total of 13 states would have to held back approval of the 17th.
I think the real question is was the 17th Amendment in violation of the Constitution, and yes, it was.
The entire Amendment process has plenipotentiary power to do as it wishes, as in order to amend something, the process doing the amending has higher power than the constitution, and that is the danger of an Article 5 COS.
Please correct me if I am wrong in this.