Was the 17th amendment a shifting of power from State legislation to Federal legislation?

Was power taken away from the states once Senators became elected by popular ballot rather than through state legislators. It seems the founding fathers did not intend for Senators to be elected by popular ballot. Would overturning this ammendment better even the balance between state and federal legislation?|||No, it seam that the 17th amendment was mostly to clarify Article 1, section 3 of the constitution.|||Happened under Wilson...An attempt to end America as a Republic (Art.4 Sec.4) and start America down the slimy slope of a democracy...A form of government the founders HATED!


Chosen by state legislatures was clear as crystal...even in the Federalist Papers explanations.|||"Was the 17th amendment a shifting of power from State legislation to Federal legislation?"





That's one way to put it. Before the 17th Amendment, U.S. Senators were more likely to respect the state legislatures and the work that those bodies did. U.S. Senators were less likely to invade the legislative prerogatives of the states.





"Was power taken away from the states once Senators became elected by popular ballot rather than through state legislators[?]"





In the most direct and obvious way, the state legislators were obviously deprived of the power to appoint the U.S. Senators! Other than that, it is extremely difficult to pinpoint some particular example of U.S. Senators doing things after the 17th Amendment that they wouldn't have done before that amendment.





"It seems the founding fathers did not intend for Senators to be elected by popular ballot."





"Seems" ? It is obvious that they didn't intend that! But -- this point is crucial -- they didn't pretend that they were perfect or that they had created a perfect constitution. That was why they made it possible to amend it. Every amendment is an attempt to improve the Constitution. At the time (early 20th Century), it seemed like a good idea to change the founding fathers' design for the Senate.





"Would overturning this amendment better even the balance between state and federal legislation?"





I'm not sure what "balance" means here. Yes, repealing the 17th MIGHT result in a Congress which would be less willing to impose "unfunded mandates" on the states, or to invade state prerogatives in other ways. But your going to have a tough sell, here. It's going to take some mighty interesting sales techniques to persuade people that they would be better off if they LOST the right to vote for U.S. Senators!